Simranjeet Kaur Vs Harjot Singh

Th e applicant-wife, by way of present application, seek s transfer of pe t ition bearing HMA/689/202 5 , titled “Harjot Singh vs. Simranjeet Kaur” , filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) at the instance o f respondent-hu s band; from the Court of learned Additional Principa l Judge, Famil y Court, Yamunanagar t o learned District Judge , Chandigarh.

¶13

Briefly st a ting, the marriage between t he applicant and responden t was solemniz e d on 16.07.2023; on acc o unt of matrimonial discor d between the p a rties, the above mentioned petition under Section 13 o f the Act, came to be preferred at the inst a nce of respondent-husband. Thereupon, th e present application seekin g transfer thereof came to b e filed by the applicant-wife.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant, i nter alia , contends that th e applicant-wife is residing in U.K. and her m other who is suffering fro m TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 16:17 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶15

TA-343-2026

¶16

2

¶17

Hypothyroidism is contesting the petition on her behalf. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Yamunagar to Family Court, Chandigarh.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant and a reply to this effect has also been filed in Court today, the same is taken on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

¶19

In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed a petition under Section 144 of BNSS bearing No.MNT/125/5/2026 for grant of maintenance besides filing of complaint bearing DV Act No.14 of 2026 under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which are pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at Chandigarh.

¶20

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered 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:-

¶21

“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.

¶22

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.

¶23

5. Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.”

¶24

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 16:17 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶25

TA-343-2026

¶26

3

¶27

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 provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are pending adjudication at Chandigarh, 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 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. HMA/689/2025, titled “Harjot Singh vs. Simranjeet Kaur”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamunanagar to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Yamunanagar to the Court concerned.

¶28

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

¶29

15.07.2026

¶30

Tejwinder

¶31

(HARK J	ESH MANUJA) UDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶32

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 16:17 I agree to specified portions of this document

Simranjeet Kaur v. Harjot Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simranjeet Kaur v. Harjot 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

Jagdeep Singh Vs Kulwinder Singh and Another

Manohar Lal Vs Pb.St.

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

Nisha Saini Vs Mohit Kumar

Prem Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

Suman Rani Vs Vinod Kumar