Wife sought transfer of husband's Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act restitution petition from Family Court, Sirsa to Karnal, where her maintenance and domestic violence petitions were pending. Relying on Manjula Singh Chouhan, the High Court allowed the transfer for convenience of hearing all proceedings together.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
TA-195-2026
1
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TA-195-2026
Date of Decision: July 15, 2026
NISHA SAINI ........Applicant Versus MOHIT KUMAR ........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Raghav Bali, Advocate for t h e applicant.
Mr. Varun Singla, Advocate for Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate f o r the respondent.
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
TA-195-2026
2
instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Sirsa to Family Court, Karnal.
“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.
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.
5. Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.”
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble
opinion of this Court, since a maintenance petition under Section 144 BNSS and a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are pending adjudication at Karnal, TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 10:58 I agree to specified portions of this document
TA-195-2026
3
therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together at the same place. Consequently the transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. HMA/918/2025, titled “ Mohit Kumar vs. Nisha Rani”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, Camp Court at Ellenabad to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Sirsa to the Court concerned.
15.07.2026
Tejwinder
| (HARKE J |
SH MANUJA) UDGE |
|---|---|
| Whether speaking/reasoned | Yes/No |
| Whether reportable | Yes/No |
TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 10:58 I agree to specified portions of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Should the husband's Section 9 HMA petition pending at Sirsa be transferred to Karnal where the wife's maintenance and DV petitions are pending?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manjula Singh Chouhan Versus Vishal Singh ChouhanRelied on¶7
2019 (13) SCC 660 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nisha Saini
Mohit Kumar
Harkesh Manuja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
