##PAGE1##

TA-1386-2025 (O & M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

203

Transfer Application No.1386 of 2025 (O & M)

Date of decision :-14.05.2026

Arshdeep Kaur

…..Applicant

Versus

Maninder Raj Singh

…..Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

None for the respondent despite service.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition filed by applicant-wife is for

transfer of the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 13

of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) titled

“Maninder Raj Singh vs. Arshdeep Kaur” (Annexure P-1) pending

in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana to a Court

of competent jurisdiction at Rajpura, District Patiala.

Though notice has been served upon the respondent but

no one is appearing on his behalf for the last two dates i.e. 14.1.2026

and 20.2.2026. Today also, nobody is present to represent him.

Accordingly, this petition is being decided in his absence.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended :-

i) That the parties were married on 27.11.2017 according

to Sikh rites and rituals.

VIJAY ASIJA

2026.05.18 19.00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

TA-1386-2025 (O & M) 2

ii) That two children i.e. one girl child who is aged six

years and second is male child who is about 2.5 years

were born out of this wedlock and are in the care and

custody of the applicant.

iii) That the applicant-wife is living separately from the

respondent-husband and living with her parents at their

mercy at Rajpura, District Patiala.

iv) That the applicant is unemployed, having no source of

income and totally dependent upon her parents and the

respondent-husband is not paying anything to her

towards maintenance.

v) That during pendency of the present Transfer

Application, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the applicant, which is pending

consideration in the Courts having competent

jurisdiction at Rajpura, District Patiala.

vi) That the distance between place of residence of the

applicant-wife i.e. Rajpura, District Patiala and the place

of proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, filed by the

respondent-husband, pending before the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Ludhiana, is about 81 kilometers on one

side.

vii) That there is no proficient male member in the family of

the applicant, who can accompany her to the Court of

proceedings at Ludhiana.

3. It is inter alia on these grounds that applicant prays for

transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant.

5. Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove, which

constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, even the legal position in

such like cases as the present one, is well established. In this regard,

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in N.C.V.

VIJAY ASIJA

2026.05.18 19.00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

TA-1386-2025 (O & M) 3

Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC)

627, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under

section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of

justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or

other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts

are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts

have to take into consideration the economic soundness of

both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their

behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the

marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of

both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under

whose protective umbrella they are seeking their

sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic

paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's

convenience which must be looked at while considering

transfer.

10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in

different Courts between the same parties which raise

common question of fact and law, and when th