Allowed¶33

Manpreet Kaur v. Jaideep Singh Naroo

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2026TA/9/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court; transfer application; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 petition; wife's convenience; Bathinda to Batala / Gurdaspur Camp Court; 240 kms distance; threat to wife; connected matrimonial proceedings heard by same Court; Manjula Singh Chouhan v. Vishal Singh Chouhan 2019 (13) SCC 660; Harkesh Manuja J.; transfer allowed.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of petition DMC/710/2024 (Jaideep Singh Naroo v. Manpreet Kaur) from the Family Court, Bathinda to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Gurdaspur, Camp Court at Batala; the requisite record to be sent by the Family Court, Bathinda to the Court concerned at the earliest; the parties to appear within a period of one month; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to stand disposed off. ¶33

Manpreet Kaur Vs Jaideep Singh Naroo — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer application seeking transfer of petition DMC/710/2024 (Jaideep Singh Naroo v. Manpreet Kaur) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Family Court, Bathinda to Batala should be allowed, on grounds of the wife's residence at Batala with two minor sons, her employment as a teacher, distance of more than 240 kms, alleged threat from the respondent and his family members, and pendency of three other cases filed by the petitioner at the Camp Court, Batala.

¶15

Court's answer

The Court found substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner (wife) in support of the transfer.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

It would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together at the same place.

¶29

Key takeaways

The transfer application is allowed and petition DMC/710/2024, filed at the instance of the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Bathinda to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Gurdaspur, Camp Court at Batala.ratio¶33
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off (continuing into the next line of the judgment).obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral, decided 09.07.2026) — T.A. No. 9 of 2025 (O&M): Manpreet Kaur (wife) sought transfer of her husband Jaideep Singh Naroo's petition DMC/710/2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Family Court, Bathinda to Batala, on the grounds that she resides at Batala with two minor sons, works as a teacher in a private school, the distance between Bathinda and Batala exceeds 240 kms, she faces threat from the respondent and his family members, and three more cases filed by her are pending in the Camp Court at Batala. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Manjula Singh Chouhan v. Vishal Singh Chouhan, 2019 (13) SCC 660 (paras 3-5 extracted), to the effect that all connected matrimonial proceedings should ordinarily be heard by the same Court in the interest of both parties, the Court held it would be in the interest of both parties that all their cases be heard together at the same place, allowed the transfer application, and transferred the petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Gurdaspur, Camp Court at Batala, directing the Family Court, Bathinda to send the requisite record at the earliest and the parties to appear within one month; pending miscellaneous application(s) stood disposed off.

¶1

139

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Transfer Application No. 9 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.07.2026

¶4

Manpreet Kaur

¶5

.......... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jaideep Singh Naroo

¶8

.......... Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶10

Present: Mr. B.B.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner-wife, by way of present application/petition, seeks transfer of petition bearing DMC/710/2024 , titled “ Jaideep Singh Naroo Versus Manpreet Kaur” filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the instance of respondent-husband; from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Batala.

¶15

[2] Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for transfer of the above said petition from Bathinda to Batala on the following grounds:-

¶16

(i) that the applicant-wife alongwith two minor sons is residing at Batala;

¶17

(ii) that she is working as teacher in private school and there is a distance of more than 240 kms. between Bathinda and Batala;

¶18

(iii) that there is threat to the petitioner from the side of respondent and his family members;

¶19

(v) that three more cases filed by the petitioner are pending in the Camp Court at Batala.

¶20

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

[2]

¶22

T.A. No. 9 of 2025 (O&M)

¶23

[3] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶24

[4] Having heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶25

[5] Besides the facts/submission(s) noticed on behalf of the petitioner, the legal position in such like cases as the present one is also very clear. Reference in this regard may made to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in Manjula Singh Chouhan

¶26

Versus Vishal Singh Chouhan, reported as 2019 (13) SCC 660 , wherein it has been 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 paras-3 to 5 of the aforesaid decision are extracted hereunder:-

¶27

“ 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.

¶28

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.”

¶29

[6] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together at same place. Consequently, the transfer application is allowed and the petition bearing DMC/710/2024

¶30

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

[3]

¶32

T.A. No. 9 of 2025 (O&M)

¶33

(supra) filed at the instance of respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Bathinda to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Gurdaspur, Camp Court at Batala. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court, Bathinda to the Court concerned at the earliest where the parties would appear within a period of one month from today.

¶34

[7] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶35

disposed off.

¶36

July 09, 2026 'dk kamra'	( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶37

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.13 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manpreet Kaur v. Jaideep Singh Naroo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Kaur v. Jaideep Singh Naroo

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

Rimpi Vs Parmod Kumar