Allowed

Sandeep Kaur v. Tarsem Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2026TA/242/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition seeking to move a restitution of conjugal rights case from Guhla, Kaithal to Nabha, Patiala. The Court emphasized the wife's convenience, pending domestic violence and maintenance proceedings, and custody of minor children as grounds for transfer, relying on Supreme Court precedents that prioritize the female litigant's convenience in matrimonial disputes

What did the court decide?

The pending petition for restitution of conjugal rights bearing No. HMA/29/2025 was transferred from the Family Court, Guhla, Kaithal to the competent court at Nabha, Patiala. The complete record was

Sandeep Kaur Vs Tarsem Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

TA-242-2026 -1-

¶2

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202 TA- 2 42-2026

¶3

Dat e of Decision: 27.05.2026

¶4

Sandeep K aur .… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Tarsem Si n gh .... Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶8

Present: - Mr. Rajinder Yadav, Advocat e for Ms. Priya Singla, Legal Aid C ounsel for the petitioner.

¶9

None for the respondent.

¶10

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

By way of filing the present p etition, the petitioner-wife is seeking tr a nsfer of petition filed by t h e respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) for restitution of conjugal rights bearing No. HMA/29/2025 dated 26.02.202 6 (Annexure P-3) titled as ‘Tarsem Singh vs. Sandeep Kaur’, pending b e fore the learned Principal Judg e , Family Court, Camp Court at Guhla, S essions Division Kaithal to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Nabha, S essions Division, Patiala.

¶12

As per office report dated 06.05.2026, notice issued to the responden t has been received back unse r ved with the report that ‘no such person is residing at the given addre s s’ . Accordingly, this petition is being decided in his absence.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner , inter alia, submits as under:

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

TA-242-2026 -2-

¶16

i) Marriage of the petitio n er with the respondent was solemnized on 16.06.2 0 13.

¶17

ii) Two children i.e. one son and one daughter were born out of the said we d lock who are presently in the care and custody of pet i tioner-mother.

¶18

iii) Due to matrimonial di s cord the parties are resident separately since 01.09. 2 020.

¶19

iv) There are 02 cases fil e d by the petitioner pending adjudication before th e Courts at Nabha details of which are as under:-

¶20

(a) Complaint bea r ing No. COMA/223/2022 dated 07.05.202 2 (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner unde r the provisions of the Protection of W o men from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pen d ing before the learned Sub Divisional Judici a l Magistrate, Nabha. pending

¶21

(b) Petition beari n g No. MNT125/73/2023 pending before t h e learned before the learned Principal Judge , Family Court, Camp at Nabha, for grant o f maintenance.

¶22

v) The petitioner is an unskilled lady having no independent source of income and is residing along with 02 minor children at her parental house upon the mercy of her parents.

¶23

vi) The distance betwee n place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. N abha and the place of proceedings filed by the respondent-husband at Guhla, District Kaithal is about 70 Kms. one side. It is very difficult for her to frequently travel from Nabha to Guhla to a t tend the Court proceedings along with 02 minor ch i ldren.

¶24

It is accordingly, prayed tha t the present petition may be allowed; a nd petition bearing No. HM A /29/2025 dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) titled as ‘Tarsem Singh vs. Sandeep Kaur’, pending before the learned Principal Judge, Fa m ily Court, Camp at Guhla, Sessions D ivision Kaithal be transferre d to a Court of competent jurisdictio n at Nabha, Sessions Division, P a tiala.

¶25

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶26

TA-242-2026 -3-

¶27

At this stage, learned counse l for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of undertaking dated 14.05.2026 given by learned counsel re p resenting the respondent bef o re the learned Family Court (Camp), G uhla to the effect that the resp o ndent shall positively appear before thi s Court today i.e. 27.05.2026 i n the present case. However, despite tha t none has put in appearance on b ehalf of the respondent. 6. 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 the case file. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

¶28

Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove in para 3, which constitute s ufficient grounds for transfer, the legal position in such like cases is w e ll established. In this regard, ju d gment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ren d ered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 , is notable, whe r ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held a s under:-

¶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

¶30

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶31

TA-242-2026

¶32

-4-

¶33

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 Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 a n d Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs 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 .” 9. 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

¶35

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶36

TA-242-2026 -5-

¶37

her place o f residence as well as bearin g of the litigation charges and travelling e xpenses.

¶38

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 : -

¶39

a) The petition bearing No. HMA/29/2025 dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) titled as ‘Tarsem Singh vs. Sandeep Singh’, pending before the learned Principal Judge, Fam i ly Court, Camp at Guhla, Sessions Division Kait h al is transferred to the Court of competent jurisd i ction at Nabha, Sessions Division, Patiala.

¶40

b) The learned District J udge, Kaithal is directed to transfer complete reco r d pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, P atiala.

¶41

c) The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Patiala on 03.07.2026.

¶42

d) The District Judge, P atiala will assign the said petition to the Court of c ompetent jurisdiction.

¶43

The concerned Court at Na b ha will make all endeavour to 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.

¶44