1 TA-505-2026 204 IN THE HIGH CCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HAARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-505-20266 Datee of Decision: July 15, 20266 SHASHI RANI ........Applicant Versus BHAGAT SINGGH ........Respondent CORAM: HONN'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKEESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Amandeep Sheroan, Advocaate for the applicant. Ms. Anu Garg, Advocate for the respondent. (thrrough video conferencing). **** HARKESH MAANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. The app licant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer off petition titled ““Shashi Rani Vs. Bhagat Singh”, filed under Sectionn 13(1)(ia)(ib) of t he Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ((hereinafter to be referred ass “the Act”) at thee instance of respondent-husbband; from the Court of learnedd Principal Judgee, Family Court, Charkhi Dadrri to learned Principal Judge,, Family Court, Paanchkula. 2. Briefly staating, the marriage between tthe applicant and respondentt was solemnizedd on 24.06.2021; out of their wwedlock, a male child namely, Akshaj was borrn; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties,, the above ment ioned petition under Section 1 3(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act, came too be preferred aat the instance of respondeent-husband. Thereupon, thee present applicaation seeking transfer thereoof came to be filed by thee applicant-wife. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant, iinter alia, contends that thee applicant-wife is residing alongwith her soon at her parental home att Panchkula. Acccordingly, a prayer is madee for transfer of the abovee

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 11:13 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 TA-505-2026 mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Charkhi Dadri to Family Court, Panchkula. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 6. In the present case, the petitioner along with her minor son has to travel a distance of around 260 kilometers from Charkhi Dadri to Panchkula which causes a great deal of inconvenience to her. Moreover, the minor son namely, Akshaj is suffering from chronic bronchitis and is undergoing treatment at Panchkula. 7. Further, reliance can be placed upon the judgments in “Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.”

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since the distance between Charkhi Dadri and Panchkula is approximately 260 kilometres and the minor son namely Akshaj is undergoing treatment for chronic bronchitis at Panchkula, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) titled “Shashi Rani Vs. Bhagat Singh” filed by the respondent-husband, be transferred from the Court of learned Principal TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 11:13 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 TA-505-2026 Judge, Family Court, Charkhi Dadri to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Charkhi Dadri to the Court concerned. Accordingly, the present transfer application is allowed. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 15.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 11:13 I agree to specified portions of this document

1 TA-505-2026 204 IN THE HIGH CCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HAARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-505-20266 Datee of Decision: July 15, 20266 SHASHI RANI ........Applicant Versus BHAGAT SINGGH ........Respondent CORAM: HONN'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKEESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Amandeep Sheroan, Advocaate for the applicant. Ms. Anu Garg, Advocate for the respondent. (thrrough video conferencing). **** HARKESH MAANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. The app licant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer off petition titled ““Shashi Rani Vs. Bhagat Singh”, filed under Sectionn 13(1)(ia)(ib) of t he Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ((hereinafter to be referred ass “the Act”) at thee instance of respondent-husbband; from the Court of learnedd Principal Judgee, Family Court, Charkhi Dadrri to learned Principal Judge,, Family Court, Paanchkula. 2. Briefly staating, the marriage between tthe applicant and respondentt was solemnizedd on 24.06.2021; out of their wwedlock, a male child namely, Akshaj was borrn; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties,, the above ment ioned petition under Section 1 3(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act, came too be preferred aat the instance of respondeent-husband. Thereupon, thee present applicaation seeking transfer thereoof came to be filed by thee applicant-wife. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant, iinter alia, contends that thee applicant-wife is residing alongwith her soon at her parental home att Panchkula. Acccordingly, a prayer is madee for transfer of the abovee

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 11:13 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 TA-505-2026 mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Charkhi Dadri to Family Court, Panchkula. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 6. In the present case, the petitioner along with her minor son has to travel a distance of around 260 kilometers from Charkhi Dadri to Panchkula which causes a great deal of inconvenience to her. Moreover, the minor son namely, Akshaj is suffering from chronic bronchitis and is undergoing treatment at Panchkula. 7. Further, reliance can be placed upon the judgments in “Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.”

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since the distance between Charkhi Dadri and Panchkula is approximately 260 kilometres and the minor son namely Akshaj is undergoing treatment for chronic bronchitis at Panchkula, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) titled “Shashi Rani Vs. Bhagat Singh” filed by the respondent-husband, be transferred from the Court of learned Principal TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 11:13 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 TA-505-2026 Judge, Family Court, Charkhi Dadri to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Charkhi Dadri to the Court concerned. Accordingly, the present transfer application is allowed. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 15.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.20 11:13 I agree to specified portions of this document