Allowed¶35

Navjot Kaur v. Mandeep Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2026TA/1582/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, TA-1582-2024 (decided 06.05.2026, Archana Puri, J.): wife's transfer application allowed; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act petition (DMC/183/2024) moved from Family Court Fazilka to Faridkot on grounds of 4-year-old child in mother's custody, her lack of earnings, about 85 km distance, and allied S.144 BNSS/PWDV cases pending at Faridkot; respondent's advocate status held not a valid ground against transfer.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of DMC/183/2024 ('Mandeep Singh Vs. Navjot Kaur') from the Family Court, Fazilka to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot; requisite record to be sent by the Family Court, Fazilka to the District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who shall assign the petition to the Family Court, Faridkot; parties directed to appear before the Family Court, Faridkot within one month.

Navjot Kaur Vs Mandeep Singh — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-husband's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (DMC/183/2024, 'Mandeep Singh Vs. Navjot Kaur'), pending in the Family Court, Fazilka, should be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The transfer application is allowed; the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (DMC/183/2024, 'Mandeep Singh Vs. Navjot Kaur') filed by the respondent-husband stands transferred from the Family Court, Fazilka to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The most weighing and relevant factor is that the child born of the estranged marriage, about 4 years old, is in the care and custody of the applicant, who herself has no source of earning.

¶30

Key takeaways

The distance between the two places (stated to be about 85 kms) and the pendency at Faridkot of two other cases arising from the estranged marriage, which the respondent is pursuing, were taken into consideration in allowing the transfer.ratio¶31
Even if the respondent is taken to be a practising Advocate at District Court, Fazilka, that status is not a ground for disposal of the transfer application unless extraneous circumstances are spelt out; no such circumstances exist in this case.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Wife's transfer application allowed. The husband's petition under Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act (DMC/183/2024, 'Mandeep Singh Vs. Navjot Kaur'), pending in the Family Court, Fazilka, is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. Deciding factors: the parties' about 4-year-old son is in the wife's care and custody and she has no source of earning; the distance between the two places is about 85 kms; and two other proceedings arising from the marriage — a petition under Section 144, BNSS, 2023 and one under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act — are already pending at Faridkot with the respondent making appearance. The respondent's alleged practice as an Advocate at District Court, Fazilka is held not to be a ground to refuse transfer unless extraneous circumstances are spelt out, and none exist here. Requisite record to be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot for assignment to the Family Court, Faridkot; parties directed to appear there within one month. (Decided 06.05.2026 by Archana Puri, J., orally.)

¶1

¶2

TA-1582-2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.152

¶5

TA-1582-2024 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026

NAVJOT KAUR

....Applicant

Versus

MANDEEP SINGH

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Ms. Rashi Verma, Advocate for Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. DMC/183/2024, titled ‘Mandeep Singh Vs. Navjot Kaur’, filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court, Fazilka and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot.

¶17

In pursuance of notice issued, the respondent made appearance through counsel and filed reply. Even, rejoinder was filed.

¶18

Counsel for the parties heard.

¶19

At the very outset, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on

¶20

HIMANSHU VATS 2026.05.07 09:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶21

¶22

TA-1582-2024

¶23

06.03.2021. One son born from the said wedlock, who is about 4 years old, is in the care and custody of the applicant. However, On account of the matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separate. The applicant is residing at her parental place. Further, it is submitted that the respondent is a practising Advocate in District Court, Fazilka.

¶24

Also, it is submitted that the applicant, together with her son, is dependent upon her parents, as she is not having any source of earning. Even, she has filed the petition under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is pending in the Courts at Faridkot and the respondent is making appearance in the same. Also, the counsel submits that after filing of the transfer application, the applicant had also filed the petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the mention whereof is made in the rejoinder and the said petition is also pending in the Courts at Faridkot and the respondent is making appearance in the said case, as well. The distance between the two places is stated to be about 85 kms. Thus, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant to take care of the minor child and pursue the litigation, from such a distance.

¶25

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the reply, refutes the claim of the applicant. In fact, she submits that the respondent is not working as an Advocate in District Court, Fazilka and he is merely a helper at the typing shop of his father, situated at DC Office, Fazilka. However, it is submitted that the respondent is having a degree of law, but he is not practising as an Advocate.

¶26

HIMANSHU VATS 2026.05.07 09:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶27

¶28

TA-1582-2024

¶29

On query by this Court, it is stated by the counsel for the respondent that no other litigation, arising from this estranged marriage, is pending in the Courts at Fazilka.

¶30

In view of the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that while adjudicating on the transfer application, relating to the matrimonial dispute, various factors ought to be taken into consideration. The most weighing and relevant factor in the case in hand, is with regard to the child born from the estranged marriage, who is about 4 years old at present, to be in the care and custody of the applicant, who herself is not having any source of earning. Even though, it is asserted by the applicant that the respondent is a practising Advocate at District Court, Fazilka, but however, the said fact has been denied by the respondent. In fact, the respondent is stated to be working as a helper at the typing shop of his father. However, it is admitted in the reply only, that the respondent is having a law degree. May it be so. Even if the respondent is taken to be a practising Advocate at District Court, Fazilka, then also, it is not a ground to be considered for disposal of the application, unless and until some extraneous circumstances are spelt out. However, it is not so in the case in hand.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid fact situation, considering the 4 years’ old child to be in the custody of the applicant, who is herself not having any source of earning; the distance between the two places and above it, taking into consideration the fact of two other cases, arising from the estranged marriage, to be pending in the Courts at Faridkot, which are being pursued

¶32

HIMANSHU VATS by the respondent, the transfer application is allowed and the petition under 2026.05.07 09:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶33

¶34

TA-1582-2024

¶35

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. DMC/183/2024, titled ‘Mandeep Singh Vs. Navjot Kaur’, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Fazilka, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court, Fazilka, to the District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

¶36

Learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, shall assign the said petition to the Family Court, Faridkot. Even, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Faridkot, within a period of one month from today onwards.

¶37

(ARCHANA PURI) 06.05.2026 JUDGE Himanshu Vats Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶38

HIMANSHU VATS 2026.05.07 09:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Navjot Kaur v. Mandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navjot Kaur v. Mandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurjeet Kaur Vs Manjit Singh

Dharmbir Vs Narendra Kumari and Ors.

Shikha Vs Anshul Kumar Aggarwal

Nancy Vs Rahul Sharma

Bahadur Singh Vs Deepak Wadhawan and Another

Nidhi Vs Hemant Yadav