Ramandeep Kaur Vs Jagseer Singh

By way of filing the prese n t petition, petitioner-wife is seeking tr a nsfer of petition filed by respo n dent-husband under Section 9 of the Hi n du Marriage Act, 1955 (for s hort-‘the Act’) bearing No. DMC-156 5 -2024 (Annexure P-1) titl e d as ‘Jagseer Singh vs. Ramandee p Kaur’ pending before the lea r ned Family Court, Bathinda, Camp Cou r t at Phul to a Court of compete n t jurisdiction at Faridkot.

¶11

As per office report, ordinary as well as dasti notices issued to respond e nt-husband for more than 06 t i mes have been received back every time with the same report i.e. ‘refus e d to accept notice’ , which is a valid servi c e. Accordingly, this petition is b eing decided in his absence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner , inter alia, submits as

¶12

under:

¶13

i) The parties solemniz e d marriage on 10.01.2017 according to Sikh Rites and Ceremonies.

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

TA-584-2025 -2-

¶16

ii) 02 children i.e. one so n and one girl who are aged around 07 years a n d 1½ years respectively. Presently, both the c h ildren are in the care and custody of the petitione r -mother.

¶17

iii) Due to matrimonial dis c ord, both the parties are now residing separately.

¶18

iv) One case bearing N o . MNT-125-10-2025 (under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023) for grant maintenance filed by the petitioner- w ife is pending adjudication at District Courts, Faridk o t.

¶19

v) At present the petition e r along with minor children is residing at her paren t al home at Faridkot and the distance between th e place of residence of the petitioner and place o f proceedings at Phul, District Bathinda is about 55 k i lometers on one side. As such, it is difficult for her t o undertake frequent travel for the case from Farid k ot to Phul along with minor children.

¶20

vi) The petitioner jobless and has no source of income and she is fully depen d ent upon the mercy of her old aged parents.

¶21

It is accordingly, prayed th a t the present petition may be allowed a n d petition bearing No. DMC-1 5 65-2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Jagseer Singh vs. Ramandeep Kaur’ pending before the learned

¶22

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

TA-584-2025 -3-

¶24

Family Co u rt, Bathinda Camp Court at P h ul be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Farikot. 5. No other argument has b e en made on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel f or the petitioner and carefully gone thro u gh the case file. I find merit i n the submissions advanced on behalf of t h e petitioner.

¶25

Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove, which constitute sufficient g rounds for transfer, the legal p o sition in such like cases is well establishe d . In this regard, judgment o f the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered i n N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 , is notable, wherein t h e Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as un d er:-

¶26

“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 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

¶27

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶28

TA-584-2025

¶29

-4-

¶30

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.”

¶31

Further reliance can be place d upon the judgments in Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 a nd Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs 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 .”

¶32

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

¶33

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶34

TA-584-2025 -5-

¶35

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 : -

¶36

a) The petition beari n g No. DMC-1565-2024 (Annexure P-1) titl e d as ‘Jagseer Singh vs. Ramandeep Kaur’ pen d ing before the learned Family Court, Bathinda Camp C ourt at Phul is transferred to a Court of competent j u risdiction i.e. learned Family Court at Faridkot.

¶37

b) The learned District J u dge, Bathinda is directed to transfer complete reco r d pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, F aridkot.

¶38

c) The parties are directe d to appear before the District Judge, Faridkot on 17.06.2026.

¶39

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

¶40

The concerned Court at Fari d kot 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. 11. The Court concerned, wh e re the litigation is pending between t h e parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar m onth.

¶41

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶42

TA-584-2025 -6-

¶43