Seema Rani Vs Naveen Kumar

By way of filing the present p etition, the petitioner-wife is seeking tr a nsfer of petition filed by respo n dent-husband under Sections 12 and 13 o f the Hindu Marriage Act, 195 5 (for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. HMA / 314/2025 (Annexure P-2) titled as ‘Naveen Kumar vs. Seema Rani’ pen d ing before the learned Family C ourt, Kurukshetra to a Court of compet e nt jurisdiction i.e. Family Court at Sirsa. 2. Learned counsel for the petiti o ner , inter alia, submits that:-

¶13

i) The parties were marri e d on 23.04.2024 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies.

¶14

ii) No child was born out o f the said wedlock.

¶15

iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are living separately since 09.12. 2 024.

¶16

iv) The petitioner has no s ource of income and is fully dependent upon her par e nts.

¶17

v) There are 05 cases fil e d by the petitioner pending adjudication before th e Courts at Sirsa details of which are as under:-

¶18

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶19

TA-1102-2025 -2-

¶20

(a) Case No. CHI/6 4 1/2025 arising out of FIR No. 43 dated 30.04.2 0 25 registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC before the Court of CJM, Sirsa (A n nexure P-4).

¶21

(b) Case No. CRM/ 2 36/2026 pending before the CJM, Sirsa (Ann e xure P-5).

¶22

(c) Case No. COM A /94/2025 filed under Sections 12, 17 to 20, 22 a nd 23 of the the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Annexure P-6).

¶23

(d) Case No. MNT125/236/2025 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pen d ing before the learned Family Court, Sirsa (An n exure P-7).

¶24

(e) Case No. HMA/ 9 52/2025 under Section of the Act before the learned Family Court, Sirsa (Annexure P-8).

¶25

vi) The distance between the place of residence of the petitioner at Sirsa a nd place of proceedings at Kurukshetra is about 2 15 kilometers on one side. As such, it is difficult for h er to undertake frequent travel for the case from Sirsa to Kurukshetra.

¶26

It is accordingly, prayed th a t the present petition may be allowed a n d petition bearing No. HMA/31 4 /2025 (Annexure P-2) titled as ‘Naveen K umar vs. Seema Rani’ pendi n g before the learned Family Court, Ku r ukshetra to a Court of compete n t jurisdiction i.e. Family Court at Sirsa.

¶27

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes t h e submissions advanced by lea r ned counsel for the petitioner and subm i ts that the petitioner has me d ically terminated 04 months pregnancy without informing the respon d ent, in respect of which the responden t -husband had submitted a com p laint before the Civil Surgeon,

¶28

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶29

TA-1102-2025 -3-

¶30

Sirsa purs u ant to which the respondent h a d been summoned vide letter

¶31

dated 15.0 7 .2025, which reads as under:-

¶32

“Sender:

¶33

Civil Surgeon, Sirsa, Recipient:

¶34

Naveen Kumar S/o Ra m Diya r/o Didar Nagar, Than e sar, Kurukshetra. Letter No. MTP/2025/190 Da t ed:15/07/2025 Subject: Regarding inquiry in t o foeticide. With reference to this office l e tter No. PNDT/2025/MTP/157 dated 23.06.2025, the subj e ct mentioned above is being written to you in continuation. A complaint submitted by you was received at the office o f Civil Surgeon, Sirsa. You are hereby given another opport u nity to record your statement and assist in the investigatin g regarding this matter. Thus, you are directed to be presen t at the office of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa on Monday, 21.07.202 5 at 2:30 PM. If you have any other relevant documents pe r taining to this matter, you are requested to bring those alon g as well.

¶35

Further, learned counsel for t h e respondent-husband submits that all the jewellery has been returned to t h e petitioner. However, learned counsel a d mits that respondent is putti n g in appearance in 03 cases pending at Sirsa.

¶36

No other argument has been m ade on behalf of the parties. I have hear d learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. I find no merit in the submissi o ns advanced on behalf of the responden t .

¶37

Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove, which constitute sufficient g rounds for transfer, the legal p o sition in such like cases is well establishe d . In this regard, judgment o f the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered i n N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022

¶38

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶39

TA-1102-2025 -4-

¶40

Live Law (SC) 627 , is notable, wherein t h e Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as un d er:-

¶41

“9. The cardinal principl e for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends o f justice should demand the t r ansfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrim o nial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider t he plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into considerat i on the economic soundness o f both the parties, the social s trata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their s tandard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent th e reto and the circumstances o f both the parties in eking o u t their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella th e y are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing s ocioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it i s the wife's convenience which must be looked at while consi d ering transfer. 10. Further, when two or m ore proceedings are pending in different Courts between t h e same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the s ame Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict o f decisions.”

¶42

Further reliance can be place d upon the judgments in Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 a nd Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “ w hile deciding the transfer applicatio n , the Courts are required t o give more weightage and considerat i on to the convenience of the fe male litigants and transfer of legal pro c eedings from one Court to a nother should ordinarily be allowed, t a king into consideration their convenience and the Courts should des i st from putting female litigants u nder undue hardships .” 9. Even this Court in numbe r of cases has followed the aforesaid p rinciple of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while considerin g the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of

¶43

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶44

TA-1102-2025 -5-

¶45

the wife, t h e Court is to consider the fa m ily condition of the wife, the custody o f the minor child, economic con d ition of the wife, her physical health an d earning capacity of the hus b and and most important the convenien c e of the wife i.e. she cannot tr a vel alone without assistance of a male me m ber of her family, connectivi t y of the place to and fro from her place o f residence as well as bearin g of the litigation charges and travelling e xpenses.

¶46

In view of the judgments i.e. Sumita Singh’s case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) a nd N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (supra) p a ssed by the Hon’ble Suprem e Court, this Court deems it appropriat e to allow the present petiti o n, subject to the following conditions : -

¶47

a) The petition filed by th e respondent-husband bearing No. HMA/314/2025 (Annexure P-2) titled as ‘Naveen Kumar vs. Se e ma Rani’ pending before the learned Family Court, K urukshetra is transferred to a Court of competent ju r isdiction i.e. Family Court at Sirsa.

¶48

b) The learned District Ju d ge, Kurukshetra is directed to transfer complete reco r d pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, P atiala.

¶49

c) The parties are directe d to appear before the District Judge, Sirsa on 19.06.2026.

¶50

d) The District Judge, Sir s a will assign the said petition to the Court of compet e nt jurisdiction.

¶51

The concerned Court at Sir s a will make all endeavour to

¶52

refer the c a se before the Mediation and C o nciliation Centre for exploring the possibi l ity of some amicable settlemen t between the parties.

¶53

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶54

TA-1102-2025 -6-

¶55

The Court concerned, wh e re the litigation is pending between t h e parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar m onth.

¶56

I am supported by the decisi o ns rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet

¶57

Singh ; an d TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh.

¶58

The present petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. 15. Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

¶59

18.05.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶60

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶61

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Seema Rani v. Naveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Rani v. Naveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Garg Vs Anita Goyal

Jasvir Kaur Vs Anmol Rattan

Ramandeep Kaur Vs Jagseer Singh

Mohlar (Deceased) Thru His Lrs. Jagat Singh etc. Vs Karan Singh and Ors.

Sandeep Kaur Vs Gubinder Singh

Madhu Chopra Vs Aditya Dayal