Reha Vs Amit Kumar

By way of filing the present p etition, the petitioner-wife is seeking tr a nsfer of petition filed by resp o ndent-husband under Section 13of the H indu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. HMA/40/ 2 025 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘ A mit Kumar vs. Reha’ pending before the learned Family Court, Camp at Nangal, District Rupnagar to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Panch k ula.

¶14

Though notice has been serv e d upon the respondent but no one is app e aring on his behalf today as we l l as on the last date of hearing as well. A c cordingly, this petition is being decided in his absence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner , inter alia, submits as

¶15

under:

¶16

i) that the parties solemni z ed marriage on 20.04.2023. ii) that one daughter is bo r n out of the said wedlock on 07.09.2025 who is pre s ently 08 months old and is in the care and custody of the petitioner-wife.

¶17

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.14 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

TA-93-2026 -2-

¶19

iii) that due to matrimonia l discord the parties are living separately. The petiti o ner along with the minor daughter is residing at K alka.

¶20

iv) that there are 03 case s filed by the petitioner-wife which are pending adj u dication before the Courts at Kalka, District Panchk u la, which are as under:-

¶21

(a) Petition under S e ction 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No. MNT-125-13-20 2 5 (Annexure P-2).

¶22

(b) Second petition u nder Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of min o r daughter bearing No. MNT125-100-2025 ( A nnexure P-3); and

¶23

(c) Complaint und e r the provisions of the Protection of W o men from Domestic Violence Act, bearing No. COMA/1/2026 (Annexure P-4).

¶24

v) that petitioner has no i ndependent source of income and the respondent-h u sband is not paying anything to the petitioner or the minor child towards maintenance.

¶25

vi) that distance between the place of Nangal to Kalka is about 90 kilometer s on one side. As such, it is difficult for her to un d ertake frequent travel for the case from Kalka to Na n gal along with minor child.

¶26

It is on these grounds that pe t itioner prays for transfer of the case, as de t ailed in para 3 above.

¶27

No other argument has b e en raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel a nd carefully gone through the

¶28

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.14 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶29

TA-93-2026 -3-

¶30

case file. I n view of the undisputed facts as noted above, I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 6. 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:-

¶31

“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 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.”

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.14 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶35

TA-93-2026 -4-

¶36

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 .”

¶37

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.

¶38

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 : -

¶39

a) The petition (Annexu r e P-1) filed by respondenthusband under Secti o n 13of Act, bearing No. HMA/40/2025(Annexu r e P-1) titled as ‘Amit Kumar vs. Reha’ pending bef o re the learned Family Court, Camp at Nangal, Dist r ict Rupnagar to a Court of competent jurisdiction a t Panchkula.

¶40

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.14 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶41

TA-93-2026 -5-

¶42

b) The learned District J u dge, Rupnagar is directed to transfer complete reco r d pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, P anchkula.

¶43

c) The parties are directe d to appear before the District Judge, Panchkula on 15.06.2026.

¶44

d) The District Judge, P a nchkula will assign the said petition to the Court of c ompetent jurisdiction. 10. The concerned Court at Pan c hkula will make all endeavour to refer t h e case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring t he possibility of some amicable settlement 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.

¶45

I am supported by the decisi o ns rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh ; an d TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh.

¶46

The present petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. 14. Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

¶47

13.05.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶48

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶49

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶50

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.14 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Reha v. Amit Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reha v. Amit Kumar

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

Payal Vs Deepanshu Kumar

Rajdeep Kaur Vs Sunny Kumar

Harmanpreet Kaur Vs Lovepreet Singh

Dashmesh Pipe Indus. Vs Major Singh @ Mejev Singh and Ors.

Parminder Kaur Vs Satwinder Singh

Diksha Vs Himanshu Johar