Sumanpreet Kaur Vs Gurpiar Singh

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 Section 9 of the Hi n du Marriage Act,1955 (for s hort-‘the Act’) bearing No. DMC/000 1 379/2025 dated 13.10.2025 (A n nexure P-3) titled as ‘Gurpiar vs. Suma n preet Kaur’ pending before the learned Family Court, Bathinda t o a Court of competent jurisdiction at Barnala. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner , inter alia, submits as

¶13

under:

¶14

i) The parties solemnize d marriage on 17.01.2022 by way of Anand Karj acc o rding to Sikh Rites. ii) One son was born out of the said wedlock on 16.02.2024, who is pre s ently in the care and custody of the petitioner-mothe r . iii) that due to matrimonia l discord the parties are living separately since 21.08. 2 025.

¶15

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶16

TA-150-2026 -2-

¶17

iv) There are 02 cases file d by the petitioner-wife which are pending adjudicati o n at District Courts Barnala which are as under:-

¶18

(a) Petition under S e ction 12 of the the Protection of Women from D omestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing No. DV/ 5 4/2025 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Sumanpreet Kaur vs. Gurpiar’ pending before the lear n ed Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala;

¶19

(b) Petition under S e ction 144 of BNNS, 2023 (125 Cr.P.C.) beari n g No. MNT/125/165/2025 (Annexure P-2) t itled as ‘Sumanpreet Kaur and another vs. Gurp i ar’ pending before the learned Family Court, B a rnala.

¶20

vi) The distance between the place of residence of the petitioner at Barnala and place of proceedings at Bathinda is about 65 k i lometers on one side. As such, it is difficult for her t o undertake frequent travel for the case from Barnala to Bathinda along with minor child.

¶21

vii) The petitioner jobless a nd has no source of income so she is dependent upon her relatives as the respondent is not paying anything towards maintenance.

¶22

It is accordingly, prayed th a t the present petition may be allowed a n d petition bearing No. DMC/0 0 01379/2025 dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) be transferred from the lea r ned Family Court, Bathinda to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Barnala.

¶23

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶24

TA-150-2026 -3-

¶25

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes t h e submissions advanced by lea r ned counsel for the petitioner and submi t s that the distance between Bathinda to Barnala is only 65 kilometers . Moreover, the petitioner ha s wrongly stated that she is jobless. In support, learned counsel for p e titioner refers to page Nos. 8 and 9 of t h e reply submitted by the resp o ndent to demonstrate that the petitioner i s running a Boutique. It is, the r efore, submitted that petitioner is workin g and the distance is short. As such, learned counsel for the responden t prays for dismissal of the prese n t petition. 5. 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 .

¶26

Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove in para 2, which constitute s ufficient grounds for transfer, the legal position in such like cases is w e ll established. In this regard, ju d gment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ren d ered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 , is notable, whe r ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held a s under:-

¶27

“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

¶28

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶29

TA-150-2026 -4-

¶30

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.”

¶31

Further reliance can be place d upon the judgments in Sumita

¶32

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 .”

¶33

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 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.

¶34

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶35

TA-150-2026

¶36

-5-

¶37

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 : -

¶38

a) The petition bearing No. DCM/0001379/2025 dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P- 3 ) titled as ‘Gurpiar vs. Sumanpreet Kaur’, filed by respondent-husband pending before the learned Family Co u rt, Bathinda is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdic t ion i.e. learned Family Court at Barnala.

¶39

b) The learned District J u dge, Bathinda is directed to transfer complete record pert a ining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Barnala.

¶40

c) The parties are directe d to appear before the District Judge, Barnala on 16.06.2026. d) The District Judge, B arnala will assign the said petition to the Court of comp e tent jurisdiction.

¶41

The concerned Court at Bar n ala will make all endeavour to 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. 11. 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.

¶42

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶43

TA-150-2026 -6-

¶44

I am supported by the decisi o ns rendered by a Co-ordinate

¶45

Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh ; an d TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh.

¶46

The present petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. 14. Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

¶47

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶48

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶49

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Sumanpreet Kaur v. Gurpiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumanpreet Kaur v. Gurpiar 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

Reha Vs Amit Kumar

Parminder Kaur Vs Satwinder Singh

Diksha Vs Himanshu Johar

Kajal Vs Rajat Chawla

Kulwinder Kaur Vs Hargopal Singh

Harpreet Kaur Vs Gursewak Singh