1 TA-624-2026 209(2) IN THE HIGH CCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HAARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-624-20266 Date of DDecision: AUGUST 13, 20266 Jyoti @ Jyoti SSharma ........Applicant Versus Deepak Bohnaa ........Respondent CORAM: HONN'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKEESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate ffor the applicant. Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARKESH MAANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. The appplicant-wife, by way of presennt application, seeks transferr of petition bearring HMA/44/2026, titled “Deeepak Bohna vs. Jyoti”, filedd under Section 113(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marria ge Act, 1955 (hereinafter too be referred ass “the Act”) at the instance oof respondent-husband; fromm the Court of leaarned Principal Judge, Familyy Court, Karnal, Camp Courtt at Indri to the CCourt of competent jurisdiction at Charkhi Dadri. 2. Briefly staating, the marriage between tthe applicant and respondentt was solemnizeed on 10.02.2019, on accoount of matrimonial discordd between the parties, the above mentionned petition under Sectionn 13(1)(ia) of the Act, came to be preferred att the instance of respondent--husband. Thereeupon, the present applicat ion seeking transfer thereoff came to be filedd by the applicant-wife.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant, iinter alia, contends that thee applicant-wife is residing at her parentaal home at Charkhi Dadri.. Accordingly, a pprayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petitionn filed at the instaance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Karnal too TEJWINDERFamilySINGH Court, CCharkhi Dadri. 2026.08.18 16:51 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 TA-624-2026 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, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed following petitions at Charkhi Dadri: i. a maintenance petition under Section 144 of BNSS bearing No.MNT/125/222/2025 ii. execution application under Section 125 CrPC bearing No. CRM-309-2026 iii, a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing No.COMA/207/2021 iv. a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing No.DMC/15/2021 7. On the other hand, the respondent-husband has filed the following petitions: i. a civil suit bearing No.884 of 2021 at District Charkhi Dadri. ii. CRR-53/2023 arising out of application filed under Section 125 CrPC at Charkhi Dadri. iii. Civil Suit i.e. CS/2969/2025 filed by respondent No.1 at Gharounda, District Karnal.

iv. petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing No.HMA/44/2026 at Indri, District Karnal. 8. 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 TEJWINDER SINGH however, submits that it will suit to the appellant only, therefore, transfer 2026.08.18 16:51 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 TA-624-2026 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 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.”

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since a 6 petitions are pending adjudication at Charkhi Dadri, 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 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. HMA/44/2026, titled “Deepak Bohna vs. Jyoti”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Charkhi Dadri. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Karnal to the Court concerned. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13.08.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.08.18 16:51 I agree to specified portions of this document

1 TA-624-2026 209(2) IN THE HIGH CCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HAARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-624-20266 Date of DDecision: AUGUST 13, 20266 Jyoti @ Jyoti SSharma ........Applicant Versus Deepak Bohnaa ........Respondent CORAM: HONN'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKEESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate ffor the applicant. Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARKESH MAANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. The appplicant-wife, by way of presennt application, seeks transferr of petition bearring HMA/44/2026, titled “Deeepak Bohna vs. Jyoti”, filedd under Section 113(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marria ge Act, 1955 (hereinafter too be referred ass “the Act”) at the instance oof respondent-husband; fromm the Court of leaarned Principal Judge, Familyy Court, Karnal, Camp Courtt at Indri to the CCourt of competent jurisdiction at Charkhi Dadri. 2. Briefly staating, the marriage between tthe applicant and respondentt was solemnizeed on 10.02.2019, on accoount of matrimonial discordd between the parties, the above mentionned petition under Sectionn 13(1)(ia) of the Act, came to be preferred att the instance of respondent--husband. Thereeupon, the present applicat ion seeking transfer thereoff came to be filedd by the applicant-wife.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant, iinter alia, contends that thee applicant-wife is residing at her parentaal home at Charkhi Dadri.. Accordingly, a pprayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petitionn filed at the instaance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Karnal too TEJWINDERFamilySINGH Court, CCharkhi Dadri. 2026.08.18 16:51 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 TA-624-2026 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, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed following petitions at Charkhi Dadri: i. a maintenance petition under Section 144 of BNSS bearing No.MNT/125/222/2025 ii. execution application under Section 125 CrPC bearing No. CRM-309-2026 iii, a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing No.COMA/207/2021 iv. a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing No.DMC/15/2021 7. On the other hand, the respondent-husband has filed the following petitions: i. a civil suit bearing No.884 of 2021 at District Charkhi Dadri. ii. CRR-53/2023 arising out of application filed under Section 125 CrPC at Charkhi Dadri. iii. Civil Suit i.e. CS/2969/2025 filed by respondent No.1 at Gharounda, District Karnal.

iv. petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing No.HMA/44/2026 at Indri, District Karnal. 8. 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 TEJWINDER SINGH however, submits that it will suit to the appellant only, therefore, transfer 2026.08.18 16:51 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 TA-624-2026 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 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.”

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since a 6 petitions are pending adjudication at Charkhi Dadri, 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 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. HMA/44/2026, titled “Deepak Bohna vs. Jyoti”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karnal to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Charkhi Dadri. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Karnal to the Court concerned. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13.08.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.08.18 16:51 I agree to specified portions of this document