Suman Vs Nirmal Singh

Pr a yer in this petition filed by p e titioner-wife is for transfer of the petition filed b y the respondent-husband unde r Section 9 of the Hindu Marr i age Act, 1955 (her e inafter referred to as ‘HMA’) passing of decree of restitutio n of conjugal righ t s titled as “Nirmal Sin g h Vs. Suman” bearing c ase No.HMA/808/2025 (Annexure P-4) pending b e fore the ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge as Principal Judge, Family Co u rt, Jind to the Court of compe t ent jurisdiction at D istrict Hisar

¶12

Le a rned counsel for the petitio n er seeks transfer of the ab o vementioned petition filed by the respondent-hus b and under Section 9 of the Hi n du Marriage Act, f r om Jind to Hisar on account of t he following reasons:i) Marriage of the petitioner w ith the respondent was solemnized on 09.07.2008;

¶13

ii) Three children were born o u t of the said wedlock, who ar e all pr e sently in the care and custody o f the petitioner; iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are residing separa t ely sin c e 11.08.2024;

¶14

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.29 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

TA-114-2026 (O&M) - 2-

¶16

iv) There are 03 cases filed by the petitioner-wife which are pe n ding adjudication before the C o urts at Hisar; which are as unde r :-

¶17

(a) Petition filed un d er the Protection of Women f r om Domestic Violence A c t, 2005 bearing No.DV-9711-2 0 24 pending before the le a rned Judicial Magistrate Ist Cl a ss, Hisar;

¶18

(b) Petition filed u n der Section 125 Cr.P.C bea r ing No.MNT-348-2024, pending before Family Court, Hisar; and

¶19

(c) Petition filed und e r Section 18 and 20 of the Hi n du Adoption and Mainte n ance Act bearing No.CS-35-2 0 25, pending before Famil y Court, Hisar; v) Petitioner finds it diff i cult to travel a distance of abou t 70 k m s from Hisar to Jind as she ha s to look after three minor chil d ren sin g le handedly.

¶20

It i s accordingly, prayed that pr e sent petition be allowed and the afore-mentione d petition filed under Sectio n 9 of HMA Annexure P-1 be transferred fro m the Family Court, Jind to the Court of competent jurisdictio n at District Hisar

¶21

Or d er sheet shows that service has been duly effected upon the respondent, ho w ever none had put in appeara n ce. Even today none has appe a red on behalf of th e respondent, despite service. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner t h at the respondent is duly putti n g in appearance before the Fa m ily Court below in t he matters mentioned above.

¶22

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.29 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

TA-114-2026 (O&M) - 3-

¶24

No other argument has been mad e on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned c o unsel for the petitioner and ca r efully gone through the case fi l e. I find merit in th e submissions advanced on beha l f of the petitioner 5. Be s ides the facts as noticed herei n above, which constitute suffic i ent grounds for tra n sfer, the legal position in such l i ke cases is well established. In t his regard, judgme n t of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 , is notable, wherein the Hon’ble Supre m e Court has held as under:-

¶25

“9. The cardinal principle for e x ercise of power under section 2 4 of th e Code of Civil Procedure is tha t the ends of justice should dem a nd th e transfer of the suit, appeal o r other proceeding. In matrimo n ial matters, wherever Courts are ca l led upon to consider the ple a of tra n sfer, the Courts have to tak e into consideration the econo m ic so u ndness of both the parties, th e social strata of the spouses a nd th e ir behavioural pattern, their st a ndard of life prior to the marri a ge an d subsequent thereto and the c i rcumstances of both the partie s in eki n g out their livelihood and un d er whose protective umbrella t hey ar e seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevai l ing so c ioeconomic paradigm in the I ndian society, generally, it is the wi f e's convenience which must be looked at while conside r ing tra n sfer. 10. Further, when two or m o re proceedings are pending in di ff erent Courts between the same parties which raise com m on qu e stion of fact and law, and w h en the decisions in the cases are int e rdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the sa m e Judge so as to avoid multipl i city in trial of the same issues a nd co n flict of decisions.”

¶26

Fu r ther reliance can be placed up o n the judgments in Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237 , wherein the Ho n ’ble Supreme Court has obser v ed that “while dec i ding the transfer application, t h e Courts are required to give m o re weightage and consideration to the conveni e nce of the female litigants a nd transfer of leg a l proceedings from one Cour t to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their conve n ience and the Courts should de s ist TRIPTI SAINI from putting fe m ale litigants under undue hard s hips .” 2026.05.29 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

TA-114-2026 (O&M) - 4-

¶28

Ev e n this Court in number of c ases has followed the aforesaid principle of la w . Accordingly, it is well settled that while considering the tran s fer of a matrimoni a l dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family co n dition of the wife, the custo d y of the minor child, econo m ic condition of th e wife, her physical health and e a rning capacity of the husband a nd most important the convenience of the wife i. e . she cannot travel alone with o ut assistance of a male member of her family, c o nnectivity of the place to and fro from her plac e of residence as well as bea r ing of the litigation charges a nd travelling expe n ses.

¶29

In view of the judgments i.e. Sumita Singh’s case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Su p reme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subjec t to the following conditions:-

¶30

a) The petition bearing No. H MA/808/2025 (Annexure P- 4 ) titled as “Nirmal Singh V s. Suman” pending before t h e learned Principal Judge, Fa m ily Court, Jind is transferred t o the Court of competent juris d iction at Hisar.

¶31

b) The learned District Jud g e, Jind is directed to trans f er complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to Distr i ct Judge, Hisar.

¶32

c) The parties are directed to appear before the District Jud g e, Hisar on 15.07.2026.

¶33

d) The District Judge, Hisar w ill assign the said petition to t h e Court of competent jurisdict i on.

¶34

T h e concerned Court at Hisar will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Ce n tre for exploring the possibilit y of some amicable s ettlement between the parties.

¶35

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.29 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

TA-114-2026 (O&M) - 5-

¶37

Th e Court concerned, where the litigation is pending between the parties, will acc o mmodate them with one date i n one calendar month. 11. I a m supported by the decisions r e ndered by a Co-ordinate Benc h of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh ; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh.

¶38

As already noticed above, since the petition is being disposed of without issuin g notice to the respondent, accordingly, in these pecu l iar circumstances, in order to ensure appearance of the parties before the Dist r ict Judge, Hisar, i t is directed that a copy of this order be sent to the respon d ent through registe r ed post, besides sending a copy of this order to the District Jud g es concerned thro u gh e-mail. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to ens u re her appearance, accordingly.

¶39

Th e present petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. 14. Pe n ding application(s), if any, shal l also stand disposed of.

¶40

May 26, 2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) tripti JUDGE

¶41

Whether s p eaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶42

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.29 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Suman v. Nirmal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman v. Nirmal Singh

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

Gurmitter Singh Alias Gurmitar Singh and Others Vs Gurmeet Singh

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Balram and Ors.

Ishwar Singh and Ors. Vs Anurag Rastogi and Ors.

Deeksa Garg Vs Yogesh Jindal

Sushila and Others Vs Rajesh and Another

Ravina Vs Deepak