Manpreet Kaur Vs Harwinder 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 Sections 13(1)(ia) a n d 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marr i age Act, 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) bear i ng No. HMA/124/2025 (Anne x ure P-1) titled as ‘Harwinder Singh vs. Manpreet Kaur’ pending befo r e the learned Family Court, Camp Cou r t at Moonak, Sessions Division, Sangrur to the Family Court, Camp at S a rdulgarh, Sessions Division, M a nsa.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner , inter alia, submits as

¶14

under:

¶15

i) Marriage of the petiti o ner with the respondent was solemnized on 18.02.2 0 22.

¶16

ii) No child was born out o f the said wedlock. iii) Due to matrimonial di s cord the parties are residing separately since April, 2 022.

¶17

iv) There are 03 cases file d by the petitioner-wife which are pending adjudic a tion before the Courts at

¶18

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶19

TA-198-2026

¶20

-2-

¶21

Sardulgarh, Sessions D ivision, Mansa; which are as under:-

¶22

(a) Petition under S e ction 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No. MNT No. 43 o f 2022 pending before the learned Family Court, Camp at Sardulgarh, Sessions Divisio n Mansa;

¶23

(b) Criminal case arising out of FIR No. 110 dated 23.11.2022 regis t ered under section 498-A and 406 IPC, pendi n g before the learned JMIC, Sardulgarh; and

¶24

(c) Petition filed un d er Section 12 the Protection of Women from D omestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before t h e learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sardul g arh.

¶25

v) The petitioner has n o source of income and is residing with her old a g ed parents.

¶26

vi) The distance betwee n place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. S a rdulgarh and the place of proceedings filed by the respondent-husband at Moonak is about 75-8 0 kilometers on one side. It is very difficult for he r to frequently travel from Sardulgarh to Moo n ak to attend the Court proceedings.

¶27

vii) The petitioner is facing threat to her life at the hands of respondent-husband. 3. It is accordingly, prayed th a t the present petition may be allowed; a n d petition bearing No. HMA/ 1 24/2025 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Harwi n der Singh vs. Manpreet Kau r ’ pending before the learned Family C o urt, Camp Court at Moonak, S essions Division, Sangrur be transferred to the Family Court, Camp at Sardulgarh, Sessions Division, Mansa.

¶28

No other argument has been m ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have hea r d learned counsel for the petiti o ner and carefully gone through

¶29

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶30

TA-198-2026 -3-

¶31

the case file. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

¶32

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:-

¶33

“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.”

¶34

Further reliance can be place d upon the judgments in Sumita

¶35

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

¶36

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶37

TA-198-2026 -4-

¶38

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 .”

¶39

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.

¶40

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 : -

¶41

a) The petition HMA/124 / 2025 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Harwinder Singh vs. Manpreet Kaur’ pending before the learned Fa m ily Court, Camp Court at Moonak, Sessions Divi s ion, Sangrur is transferred to the Family Court, C a mp at Sardulgarh, Sessions Division, Mansa.

¶42

b) The learned District J u dge, Sangrur is directed to transfer complete reco r d pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, M ansa.

¶43

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶44

TA-198-2026 -5-

¶45

c) The parties are directe d to appear before the District Judge, Mansa on 22.06.2026.

¶46

d) The District Judge, M ansa will assign the said petition to the Court of c ompetent jurisdiction. 9. The concerned Court at Ma n sa will make all endeavour to

¶47

refer the c a se before the Mediation and C o nciliation Centre for exploring the possibi l ity of some amicable settlemen t between the parties.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

The present petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. 13. Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

¶51

20.05.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶52

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶53

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶54

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Manpreet Kaur v. Harwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Kaur v. Harwinder 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

Baby and Ors. Vs Gurmail Singh and Ors.

Gazal Dhawan Vs Dinesh Kumar

Veerpal Kaur Vs Taranpreet Singh

Sonam Vs Gaurav Kumar

M/S Indo Knit and Embroiedery P Ltd. Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala and Another

Union of India and Other Vs Norbu Awasthy