Rajbir Kaur Vs Harpal Singh

The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing GW/43/2025, dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), titled “Harpal Singh vs. Rajbir Kaur” , filed under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter to be referred as “1890 Act”) at the instance of respondent-husband; from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Moga to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kapurthala.

¶15

Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 07.02.2015; out of their wedlock, a male child namely, Harmanpreet Singh was born; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 10 of the 1890 Act, came to be preferred at the instance of respondent-husband. Thereupon, the present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the

¶16

applicant-wife.

¶17

SONIKA 2026.07.13 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

TA-1429-2025 (O&M)

¶19

--2--

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia , contends that the applicant-wife has also filed a petition under Section 144 BNSS for grant of maintenance before the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Kapurthala.

¶21

It is submitted that the applicant is residing alongwith her son at her parental home at Kapurthala. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Moga to Family Court, Kapurthala.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

¶23

In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed a petition under Section 144 of BNSS, which is pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at Kapurthala. 7. As per the averments made in the present transfer application, the applicant-wife has no independent source of income and is solely dependent on her parents. Besides it, the applicant is also taking care of her son, namely, Harmanpreet Singh. 8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in “ Manjula Singh Chouhan Versus Vishal Singh Chouhan”, reported as 2019 (13) SCC 660 held that, in the interest of both the parties, all connected matrimonial proceedings should ordinarily be heard by the same Court and, accordingly, allowed the transfer application therein. Relevant paragraphs No. 3 to 5 thereof are reproduced hereunder:-

¶24

“3. As per the submission of the appellant, two cases are already pending in Family Court, Bhopal, and it will be in the interests of both the parties to try all their cases in Bhopal. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that it will suit to the appellant only, therefore, transfer may

¶25

SONIKA 2026.07.13 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

TA-1429-2025 (O&M)

¶27

--3--

¶28

not be permitted. The fact remains that the respondent has to travel to Bhopal for conduct of other cases pending in Family Court, Bhopal.

¶29

4. We are of the view that it will be in the interests of both the parties that all their cases be heard together by the same Court. 5. Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.”

¶30

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since a maintenance petition under Section 144 BNSS is pending adjudication at Kapurthala, therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together at the same place. Consequently the transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 10 of the 1890 Act i.e. GW/43/2025, titled “Harpal Singh vs. Rajbir Kaur” , filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Moga to the Family Court, Kapurthala. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Court, Moga to the Court concerned.

¶31

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶32

10.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE

¶33

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No

¶34

SONIKA 2026.07.13 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Rajbir Kaur v. Harpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbir Kaur v. Harpal 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

Manpreet Kaur Vs Jaideep Singh Naroo

Rimpi Vs Parmod Kumar

Anju Vs Rajan and Another

Anita and Others Vs Union of India

Smt Pooja Mehta Alias Mahi Alias Pooja Insan Vs Davinder Wadhawan

Neetika Devi Vs Harish Chander