Suman Rani Vs Vinod Kumar

The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing No.HMA/337/2025 (Annexure P-7), titled “Vinod Kumar vs. Suman Rani” , filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “1955 Act”) at the instance of respondent-husband; from the learned Family Court, Fatehabad to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Fazilka.

¶14

Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 13.05.2013; out of the wedlock, a female child, namely, Nomita was born; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act, came to be preferred at the instance of respondent-husband. Thereupon, the present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the applicant-wife.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia , contends that the

¶16

SONIKA 2026.07.17 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

TA-299-2026 (O&M)

¶18

--2--

¶19

applicant-wife also filed petition bearing No.MNT.125-655-2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed on 13.01.2026 as well as complaint bearing No.COMA-44/2021 dated 20.08.2021, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which also came to be allowed on 27.01.2026. Thereafter, when the respondent failed to comply with the orders, the applicant-wife filed the following three execution applications and one petition before the ld. Family Court, Fazilka:-

¶20

(i) CRM-911/2024 dated 24.12.2024 for payment of Rs.96,000/-; (ii) CRM-1271-2025 dated 18.11.2025 for payment of Rs.88,000/-; (iii) CRM-187-2026 dated 07.02.2026 for payment of Rs.1,09,000/-; (iv) petition bearing DMC-22/2026 dated 10.02.2026 under Section 9 of 1955 Act.

¶21

Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Fatehabad to Family Court, Fazilka.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made in the present application.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

¶24

In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed the aforementioned four cases, which are pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at Fazilka.

¶25

As per the averments made in the present transfer application, the applicant-wife is a household lady having no independent source of income and is solely dependent on her old parents.

¶26

SONIKA 8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered 2026.07.17 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶27

TA-299-2026 (O&M)

¶28

--3--

¶29

in “ Manjula Singh Chouhan Versus Vishal Singh Chouhan”, reported as 2019 (13) SCC 660 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 paragraphs No. 3 to 5 thereof are reproduced hereunder:-

¶30

“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.

¶31

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.”

¶32

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since three execution applications bearing No.CRM911-2024, CRM-1271-2025, CRM-187-2026 and one petition under Section 9 of the 1955 Act are pending adjudication at Fazilka, 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 13 of the 1955 Act i.e. bearing No.HMA/337/2025, titled “Vinod Kumar vs. Suman Rani” , filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehabad to the Family Court, Fazilka. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Court, Fatehabad to the Court concerned.

¶33

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶34

15.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE

¶35

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No

¶36

SONIKA 2026.07.17 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Suman Rani v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Rani v. Vinod Kumar

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

Jagdeep Singh Vs Kulwinder Singh and Another

Manohar Lal Vs Pb.St.

Musadi Lal Garg & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Simranjeet Kaur Vs Harjot Singh

Nisha Saini Vs Mohit Kumar

Prem Kumar Vs Union of India and Others