Parneet Kaur Vs Kulwinder Singh

The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing No.HMA-1811-2024 (Annexure A-4), titled “Kulwinder Singh vs. Parneet Kaur” , filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “1955 Act”) at the instance of respondent-husband; from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana to the competent Court of jurisdiction at SAS Nagar Mohali.

¶15

Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 02.02.2014; out of the wedlock, a boy child, namely Jaskaran was born on 02.12.2014; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 9 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

¶16

SONIKA 2026.07.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

TA-838-2025 (O&M)

¶18

--2--

¶19

by the applicant-wife.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia , contends that the applicant-wife has also filed a complaint bearing No.COMA/98/2024 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “DV Act”) before the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, SAS Nagar Mohali.

¶21

It is submitted that the applicant is residing at her parental home at SAS Nagar Mohali. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Ludhiana to Family Court, SAS Nagar Mohali.

¶22

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

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 6. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed a complaint under Section 12 of DV Act, which is pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at SAS Nagar Mohali.

¶24

As per the averments made in the present transfer application, the applicant-wife is doing private job in Chandigarh to make ends meet for herself and her child, who is studying in SAS Nagar Mohali.

¶25

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:-

¶26

SONIKA 2026.07.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶27

TA-838-2025 (O&M)

¶28

--3--

¶29

“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.

¶30

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.”

¶31

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble

¶32

opinion of this Court, since a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act is pending adjudication at SAS Nagar Mohali, 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 9 of the 1955 Act i.e. bearing No.HMA/1811/2024, titled “Kulwinder Singh vs. Parneet Kaur” , filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana to the Family Court, SAS Nagar Mohali. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Court, Ludhiana to the Court concerned.

¶33

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

¶34

14.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE

¶35

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned:

¶36

Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No

¶37

SONIKA 2026.07.16 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Parneet Kaur v. Kulwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parneet Kaur v. Kulwinder 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

Amanpreet Kaur Vs Ashvinder Kaur and Others

Jyoti Vs Mohit Mann

State of Punjab and etc. Vs Mansa Ram

Jagdeep Singh Vs Kulwinder Singh and Another

Manohar Lal Vs Pb.St.

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