Kulwinder Kaur Vs Hargopal Singh

By way of filing the present p etition, the petitioner-wife is seeking tr a nsfer of petition filed by resp o ndent-husband under Section 13 of the H indu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. HMA/217 / 2025 dated 08.09.2025 (Anne x ure P-4) titled as ‘Hargopal Singh vs. K ulwinder Kaur’ pending before the learned Family Court, Camp Co u rt, Dasuya to a Court of com p etent jurisdiction at Bholath, Sessions D ivision, Kapurthala.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petiti o ner , inter alia, submits that:i) The parties were marri e d on 13.12.2024 as per Sikh Rites and Ceremonies.

¶13

ii) Two children i.e. one s on (born on 17.06.2016) and one daughter (born on 18.05.2018) were born out of the said wedlock; and p resently they both are in the care and custody of the petitioner-mother.

¶14

iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are living separately since 07.08. 2 025.

¶15

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

¶16

TA-161-2026 -2-

¶17

iv) The petitioner has no s o urce of income. As such she is unable to maintain h e rself and the minor children.

¶18

v) One case filed by the p etitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Wo m en from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Annexure P -5) is pending adjudication before the learned J u dicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bholath, Sessions Divi s ion, Kapurthala.

¶19

vi) The distance between the place of residence of the petitioner at Village N adala, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala and plac e of proceedings at Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur i s about 70 kilometers on one side. As such, it is d ifficult for her to undertake frequent travel for t h e case from Village Nadala, Tehsil Bholath, Distri c t Kapurthala to Dasuya along with minor children.

¶20

Learned counsel submits that the petition bearing

¶21

No. HM A /217/2025 dated 08.09.2025 ( Annexure P-4) filed by the responden t -husband deserves to be trans fe rred from the learned Family Court, Ca m p Court, Dasuya to Court of competent jurisdiction at Sessions D ivision, Kapurthala as, the peti t ioner is single handedly taking care of th e minor children. Moreover, th e respondent has filed the said petition ( A nnexure P-4) through his Spe c ial Power of Attorney Holder who is his sister as, he himself is residing in Portugal as is mentioned in the memo of parties of petition (Annexur e P-4). Further, learned counsel for the pet i tioner refers to MLR (Annexur e P-3) wherein it is shown that

¶22

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

¶23

TA-161-2026 -3-

¶24

the respon d ent has physically assaulted t h e petitioner. It is accordingly, prayed tha t the present petition may be all o wed. 4. Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advoc a te, has put in appearance on behalf of t he respondent-husband and su b mits Memo of Appearance in Court, wh i ch is taken on record. Learne d counsel for the respondent is unable to dispute the aforesaid submissi o ns of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

No other argument has been m ade on behalf of the parties. I have hear d learned counsel and carefully gone through the case file. In view of t he undisputed facts as note d above, I find merit in the submissio n s advanced on behalf of the pet i tioner.

¶26

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

¶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 Indian society, generally, it i s the wife's convenience which must be looked at while consi d ering transfer.

¶28

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

¶29

TA-161-2026

¶30

-4-

¶31

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.”

¶32

Further reliance can be place d upon the judgments in Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 a nd Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs

¶33

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 .”

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

TA-161-2026 -5-

¶38

(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 : -

¶39

a) The petition filed by th e respondent-husband bearing No. HMA/217/2025 d a ted 08.09.2025 (Annexure P- 4) titled as ‘Hargopal Singh vs. Kulwinder Kaur’ pending before the l e arned Family Court, Camp Court, Dasuya is trans fe rred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Sessions Division, Kapurthala.

¶40

b) The learned District Ju d ge, Hoshiarpur is directed to transfer complete reco r d pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, K apurthala.

¶41

c) The parties are directe d to appear before the District Judge, Kapurthala on 16.06.2026.

¶42

d) The District Judge, K a purthala will assign the said petition to the Court of c ompetent jurisdiction.

¶43

The concerned Court at Kap u rthala will make all endeavour to refer t h e case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring t he possibility of some amicable settlement 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.

¶44