Rimpi Vs Parmod Kumar

The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing HMA/3802/2025 (Annexure P-2), titled “Parmod Kumar vs. Rimpi” , filed under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “1955 Act”) at the instance of respondent-husband; from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Camp Court, Indri to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kaithal.

¶15

Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 21.05.2021; out of their wedlock, a child was born; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib)of 1955 Act, came to be preferred at the instance of respondent-husband. Thereupon, the present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the applicant-wife.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia , contends that the

¶17

SONIKA 2026.07.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

TA-170-2026 (O&M)

¶19

--2--

¶20

applicant-wife has also filed the following two cases, which are pending before the ld. Family Court, Kaithal:-

¶21

(i) petition bearing MNT/21/2026, titled “Rimpi vs. Parmod Kumar” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance;

¶22

(ii) complaint bearing No.COMA/13/2026, “Rimpi vs. Parmod Kumar” under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005;

¶23

Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned divorce petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Indri to Family Court, Kaithal.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made in the present application.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

¶26

In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed the aforementioned two cases, which are pending adjudication before the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kaithal.

¶27

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 minor child.

¶28

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:-

¶29

SONIKA 2026.07.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶30

TA-170-2026 (O&M)

¶31

--3--

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

5. Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.”

¶35

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since two petitions i.e. petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are pending adjudication at Kaithal, therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together by the same Court. Consequently the transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the 1955 Act i.e. HMA/3802/2025, titled “Parmod vs. Rimpi” , filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Indri, to the Family Court of competent jurisdiction at Kaithal. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court, Indri to the Court concerned.

¶36

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

¶37

09.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE

¶38

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

¶39

SONIKA 2026.07.13 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Rimpi v. Parmod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rimpi v. Parmod Kumar

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

Savita Vs Vinod Chopra

Rajandeep Kaur Vs Sukhwinder Singh

Major Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Mamta Saini Vs Dhani Ram and Others

Kavita Vs Pankaj Yadav

Manpreet Kaur Vs Jaideep Singh Naroo