Rajandeep Kaur Vs Jaswinder Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Rajandeep Kaur Vs Jaswinder Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Transfer of petition HMA-19 of 2026 (Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — restitution of conjugal rights) filed by the respondent-husband from the Family Court, Samana, District Patiala to the Family Court, Rupnagar; Family Court, Samana directed to send the requisite record to the Court concerned; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition HMA-19 of 2026 filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, pending before the Family Court, Samana, District Patiala, should be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Rupnagar.

Court's answer

In the humble opinion of this Court, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together by the same Court.

Ratio / Principle

The transfer application is allowed and the petition filed under Section 9 of the 1955 Act by the respondent-husband stands transferred from the Family Court, Samana, District Patiala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Rupnagar.

Key takeaways

The requisite record of the transferred case shall be sent by the Family Court, Samana to the Court concerned.ratio¶33
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Application allowed — connected matrimonial proceedings to be heard by the same Court. The applicant-wife (Rajandeep Kaur), residing at her parental home at Rupnagar about 222 kms from Samana and solely dependent on her parents, sought transfer of the respondent-husband's (Jaswinder Singh) petition HMA-19 of 2026 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights from the Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Samana, District Patiala, to a competent Court at Rupnagar, where her own divorce petition HMA-362-2025 under Section 13 of the 1955 Act was already pending. Applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Manjula Singh Chouhan v Vishal Singh Chouhan, 2019 (13) SCC 660, that all connected matrimonial proceedings should ordinarily be heard by the same Court in the interest of both parties, Harkesh Manuja J. held the transfer to be in the interest of both parties, allowed the application, ordered transfer of the Section 9 petition to the Family Court, Rupnagar, and directed the Family Court, Samana to send the requisite record. Pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of. (Decided 07.07.2026.)

TA-484-2026 (O&M)

--1--

202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

TA-484-2026 (O&M) Decided on:-07.07.2026

Rajandeep Kaur

….Applicant.

vs.

Jaswinder Singh ….Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr.K.K. Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Jasinder S. Sekhon, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. R.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the respondent.

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing HMA-19 of 2026 (Annexure P-3), titled “Jaswinder Singh vs. Rajandeep Kaur” , filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “1955 Act”) for grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights , at the instance of respondent-husband; from the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge(Family Court), Samana, District Patiala to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Rupnagar.

Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 16.07.2014; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 9 of 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 SONIKA 2026.07.09 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

TA-484-2026 (O&M)

--2--

applicant-wife.

Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia , contends that the applicant-wife has also filed the divorce petition bearing HMA-362-2025 under Section 13 of the 1955 Act, titled as “Rajandeep Kaur vs. Jaswinder Singh” before the Family Court, District Rupnagar.

The notice in the aforementioned petition has been issued to the respondent-husband. It is further submitted that the applicant is residing at her parental home at Rupnagar which is about 222 Kms away from Samana. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Samana to Family Court, Rupnagar.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant.

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

In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed the divorce petition, which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rupnagar.

As per the averments made in the present transfer application, the applicant-wife is solely dependent on her parents, who are unable to accompany her on each and every date of hearing at Samana, which is about 222 kms away from Rupnagar.

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,

SONIKA 2026.07.09 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

TA-484-2026 (O&M)

--3--

accordingly, allowed the transfer application therein. Relevant paragraphs No. 3 to 5 thereof are reproduced hereunder:-

“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.

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.”

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 by the same Court. Consequently the transfer application is allowed and the petition filed under Section 9 of the 1955 Act, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Samana, District Patiala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Rupnagar. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court, Samana to the Court concerned.

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

07.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE

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

SONIKA 2026.07.09 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document