JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J. 

CM-1896-CII-2026 IN TA-143-2026;

CM-21868-CII-2025 IN TA-1387-2025 AND CM-21816-CII-2025 IN TA-1382-2025

1. Keeping in view the averments made in the applications, same are allowed.

CM-6192-CII-2026 IN TA-143-2026

2. The present application has been filed, at the behest of the applicant, for placing on record the zimini orders dated 11.02.2026 and 12.02.2026, as Annexures P-12 and P-13.

3. In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and requisite zimini orders are taken on record.

Main cases

4. These are three applications, filed by Vineet Sharma-applicant/husband, for seeking transfer of three litigations, pending between the parties to the lis, arising from the estranged marriage.

5. TA-143-2026 has been filed for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act i.e. GW/5/2022, titled ‘Vineet Sharma Vs. Payal Sharma’, filed at the instance of the applicant/father (husband of the respondent), thereby seeking custody of the minor son, born from the wedlock of the parties to the lis.

6. TA-1387-2025 has been filed for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. HMA/164/2022, titled ‘Vineet Sharma Vs. Payal Sharma’.

7. TA-1382-2025 has been filed for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act i.e. GW/39/2021, titled ‘Payal Sharma Vs. Vineet Sharma’, filed at the instance of the respondent/mother (wife of the applicant), thereby seeking custody of the minor daughter, born from the wedlock of the parties to the lis.

8. All the aforesaid cases are pending in the Courts at Dhuri and the applicant is seeking transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sangrur.

9. In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent/wife made appearance through counsel and filed replies in the respective applications.

10. Counsel for the parties heard.

11. As culled out from the paperbook, the facts germane to be noticed are that, there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties to the lis. Applicant-Vineet Sharma, is a resident of Ludhiana and is a practising Advocate. Respondent-Payal Sharma, is a resident of Dhuri and she is presently working as a teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya No.I, Adampur, Jalandhar. Two children were born from the wedlock of the parties. The elder child is the daughter, who is about 15 years old and she is in the care and custody of the applicant/father, whereas, the younger child is a son, who is about 11 years old and he is in the care and custody of the respondent/mother. However, on account of matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separate.

12. It is on account of bias, on the part of the Presiding Officer towards the applicant and not showing good conduct towards him, that the applicant/husband, has filed all the three transfer applications, relating to the aforesaid litigation.

13. In fact, while making reference to various zimini orders, passed by the Presiding Officer, thereby declining the request of the applicant, for adjournment and primarily, closing the evidence of the applicant (who is petitioner in the divorce petition, detailed aforesaid), on 01.10.2025, counsel submits that the applicant apprehends about the Presiding Officer of the Family Court to be biased against him. Further, counsel submits that in the guardianship petition i.e. GW/5/2022, vide order dated 26.11.2025, last opportunity was granted to the applicant (petitioner in the guardianship petition), to lead evidence and on the next date i.e. 10.12.2025, his evidence was closed by order. However, in the guardianship petition i.e. GW/39/2021, though, vide order dated 06.08.2025, last opportunity was granted to the respondent/mother (petitioner in the guardianship petition), to lead evidence, but however, on the subsequent date i.e. 24.09.2025, an adjournment was sought, which was granted, subject to last and final opportunity. Considering such conduct, counsel submits that the applicant does no