1 TA-788-2026 106 IN THE HIGH CCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HAARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-788-20266 Datee of Decision: July 27, 20266 MANJIT KAURR ........Applicant Versus JATINDER SINNGH ........Respondent CORAM: HONN'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKEESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Yaman, Advocate for the appplicant. (leggal aid counsel). Mr. Kshitij Goel, Advocate for thee respondent. **** HARKESH MAANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. The appplicant-wife, by way of presennt application, seeks transferr of petition beaaring HMA/416/2026, titled ““Jatinder Singh Vs. Manjitt Kaur”, filed uunder Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19555 (hereinafter too be referred as “the Act”) aat the instance of respondent--husband; from the Court of learned Prinncipal Judge, Family Court,, Ambala to Courrt of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 2. Briefly staating, the marriage between tthe applicant and respondentt was solemnizeed on 14.04.2024; on accoount of matrimonial discordd between the paarties, the above mentioned petition under Section 13 off the Act, came to be preferred at the instaance of respondent-husband. Thereupon, thee present application seekingg transfer thereof came to bee filed by the app licant-wife. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant, iinter alia, contends that thee applicant-wife is residing at her parenntal home at Chandigarh.. Accordingly, a pprayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petitionn filed at the instaance of respondent-husband ffrom Family Court, Ambala too

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.29 14:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 TA-788-2026 Family Court, Chandigarh. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant while submitting that two petitions under Section 144 BNSS for grant of maintenance and under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending at Chandigarh were filed by the applicant-wife merely to harass the respondent-husband as the same were filed after the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the respondent-husband. 5. 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 petition under Section 144 of BNSS bearing No.MNT/125/18040/2026 for grant of maintenance and a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing No. COMP DV Act/18042/2026, which are pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at Chandigarh.

7. 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:-“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. 4. We are of the view that it will be in the interests of both the parties that TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.29 14:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 TA-788-2026 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.”

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since a maintenance petition under Section 144 BNSS and a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are pending adjudication at Chandigarh, 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 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. HMA/416/2026, titled “Jatinder Singh vs. Manjit Kaur”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Ambala to the Court concerned. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.29 14:31 I agree to specified portions of this document

1 TA-788-2026 106 IN THE HIGH CCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HAARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-788-20266 Datee of Decision: July 27, 20266 MANJIT KAURR ........Applicant Versus JATINDER SINNGH ........Respondent CORAM: HONN'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKEESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Yaman, Advocate for the appplicant. (leggal aid counsel). Mr. Kshitij Goel, Advocate for thee respondent. **** HARKESH MAANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. The appplicant-wife, by way of presennt application, seeks transferr of petition beaaring HMA/416/2026, titled ““Jatinder Singh Vs. Manjitt Kaur”, filed uunder Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19555 (hereinafter too be referred as “the Act”) aat the instance of respondent--husband; from the Court of learned Prinncipal Judge, Family Court,, Ambala to Courrt of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 2. Briefly staating, the marriage between tthe applicant and respondentt was solemnizeed on 14.04.2024; on accoount of matrimonial discordd between the paarties, the above mentioned petition under Section 13 off the Act, came to be preferred at the instaance of respondent-husband. Thereupon, thee present application seekingg transfer thereof came to bee filed by the app licant-wife. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant, iinter alia, contends that thee applicant-wife is residing at her parenntal home at Chandigarh.. Accordingly, a pprayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petitionn filed at the instaance of respondent-husband ffrom Family Court, Ambala too

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.29 14:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 TA-788-2026 Family Court, Chandigarh. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant while submitting that two petitions under Section 144 BNSS for grant of maintenance and under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending at Chandigarh were filed by the applicant-wife merely to harass the respondent-husband as the same were filed after the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the respondent-husband. 5. 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 petition under Section 144 of BNSS bearing No.MNT/125/18040/2026 for grant of maintenance and a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing No. COMP DV Act/18042/2026, which are pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at Chandigarh.

7. 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:-“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. 4. We are of the view that it will be in the interests of both the parties that TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.29 14:31 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 TA-788-2026 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.”

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since a maintenance petition under Section 144 BNSS and a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are pending adjudication at Chandigarh, 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 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. HMA/416/2026, titled “Jatinder Singh vs. Manjit Kaur”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Ambala to the Court concerned. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.29 14:31 I agree to specified portions of this document