Suriya Begum Vs Taj Mohammad

The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing DCM-03-2026, titled as “Taj Mohammad vs. Suriya Begum” filed under Muslim Personal Law seeking declaration of dissolution of Marriage by Talaq at the instance of respondent-husband; from the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Barnala to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

¶16

Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 05.07.2000 and out of the wedlock, two male children were born; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition bearing DCM-03-2026, 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.

¶17

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

¶18

SONIKA 2026.07.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶19

TA-547-2026 (O&M)

¶20

--2--

¶21

applicant-wife is residing with her parents at Jalandhar alongwith her two sons. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Barnala to Family Court, Jalandhar.

¶22

Despite service, no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent.

¶23

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

¶24

In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife filed petition bearing No.MNT.125-218-2024 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed on 16.10.2025. Thereafter, when the respondent failed to comply with the order, the applicant-wife filed the execution petition, which is pending adjudication before the ld. Family Court, Jalandhar.

¶25

As per the averments made in the present transfer application, the applicant-wife has no independent source of income and is solely dependent on the mercy of her parents along with her two children.

¶26

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:-

¶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

¶29

SONIKA 2026.07.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶30

TA-547-2026 (O&M)

¶31

--3--

¶32

Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.”

¶33

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since execution petition is pending before the ld. Family Court, Jalandhar, 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 bearing DMC-03-2026 under Muslim Personal Law, titled “Taj Mohammad vs. Suriya Begum” , filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Barnala, to the Family Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court, Barnala to the Court concerned.

¶34

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

¶35

17.07.2026 sonika

¶36

(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE

¶37

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

¶38

SONIKA 2026.07.21 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Suriya Begum v. Taj Mohammad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suriya Begum v. Taj Mohammad

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

Deepika Vs Deepak Kankar

Renu Bala Vs Sandeep Kumar

Prity Vs Ankit Sharma and Another

Meena and Another Vs Union of India

Kirna Alias Kirna Devi Vs Happy

Laxmi Devi and Others Vs Union of India and Another