Harpreet Kaur Vs Gursewak 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 Hin d u Marriage Act, 1955 (for sho r t-‘the Act’) for Restitution of Conjugal R ights (Annexure P-2) titled as ‘ Gursewak Singh vs. Harpreet Kaur’ pen d ing before the learned Family C ourt, Tarn Taran to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petiti o ner , inter alia, submits that:-

¶14

i) The parties were marri e d on 27.11.2022 as per Sikh Rites and Ceremonies.

¶15

ii) One son was born out of the said wedlock who is presently in the care a nd custody of the petitionermother.

¶16

iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are living separately since April, 2 024.

¶17

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

¶18

TA-183-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶19

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

¶20

v) One case filed by the p etitioner under the provisions of the Protection of W o men from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Annexure P -1) is pending adjudication before the learned J u dicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur.

¶21

vi) The distance between the place of residence of the petitioner at Gurdasp u r and place of proceedings at Tarn Taran is about 9 5 kilometers on one side. As such, it is difficult for h er to undertake frequent travel for the case from Gur d aspur to Tarn Taran along with minor child.

¶22

vii) The petition (Annexur e P-2) filed by the respondenthusband under Sectio n 9 of the Act deserves to be transferred from the learned Family Court, Tarn Taran to Family Court , Gurdaspur as, the petitioner is single handedly taki n g care of the minor child. Moreover, the respon d ent has filed the said petition (Annexure P-2) thro u gh his Power of Attorney Holder who is his fat h er as, he himself had deserted the petitioner and gon e to Portugal on 01.03.2023

¶23

1. It is accordingly prayed th a t the present petition may be

¶24

allowed.

¶25

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

¶26

TA-183-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶27

Learned counsel for the resp o ndent is unable to dispute the aforesaid s u bmissions of learned counsel f o r the petitioner.

¶28

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. 6. 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:-

¶29

“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. 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.”

¶30

Further reliance can be place d upon the judgments in Sumita

¶31

Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 a nd Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs

¶32

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

¶33

TA-183-2026 (O&M) -4-

¶34

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 .” 8. 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 (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 : -

¶36

a) The petition filed by t h e respondent-husband under Section 9 of the A c t (Annexure P-2) titled as ‘Gursewak Singh vs. H arpreet Kaur’ pending before

¶37

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

¶38

TA-183-2026 (O&M) -5-

¶39

the learned Family Co u rt, Tarn Taran is transferred to a Court of competen t jurisdiction at Gurdaspur.

¶40

b) The learned District Ju d ge, Tarn Taran is directed to transfer complete reco r d pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, G urdaspur.

¶41

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

¶42

d) The District Judge, G u rdaspur will assign the said petition to the Court of c ompetent jurisdiction.

¶43

The concerned Court at Gur d aspur 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

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

¶45

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

¶46

14.05.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶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.

Harpreet Kaur v. Gursewak Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

Harpreet Kaur v. Gursewak 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

Sumanpreet Kaur Vs Gurpiar Singh

Kulwinder Kaur Vs Hargopal Singh