Jyoti Rani v. Sandeep
--1-- 204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:-03.07.2026 Jyoti Rani ....Applicant.
vs.
Sandeep ....Respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:
Mr.Sumit Dua, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate for the respondent.
***** HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral) 1.
The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing GW/29/2025, dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), titled "Sandeep vs. Jyoti Rani", filed under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter to be referred as "1890 Act") at the instance of respondent-husband; from the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge(Family Court), Karnal to the competent Court of jurisdiction at 2.
Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 19.10.2020; out of their wedlock, a boy child namely, Keshav, was born on 14.01.2022; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 12 of 1890 Act, came to be preferred at the instance of respondent-husband. Thereafter, the present application seeking its transfer came to be filed by the applicant-
--2-- wife.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia, contends that the applicant-wife has also filed the following three cases before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalandhar:- (i) Petition (bearing No.MNT-79-2025 dated 24.02.2025) for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.;
(ii) Complaint (No.COMA/396-2025) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; (iii) FIR No.83 dated 07.08.2025, under Sections 316(2) and 85 of BNS, registered at Police Station Women Cell, at Jalandhar. The notices in the aforementioned cases have been issued to the respondent-husband. It is further submitted that the applicant is residing alongwith her minor son (mentally not well) at her parental home at Jalandhar which is about 250 Kms away from Karnal. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned divorce petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Karnal to Family Court, 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 the abovementioned three cases which are pending adjudication before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalandhar. 7.
As per the averments made in the present transfer application, the applicant-wife is solely dependent on her parents, who are unable to accompany her on each and every date of hearing at Karnal, which is about
--3-- 250 kms away from Jalandhar. Besides it, the applicant is also taking care of her minor son, namely, Keshav, who is mentally unwell, while staying at 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. 9.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together by the same Court. Consequently the transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 12 of the 1860 Act i.e. GW-29/2025 dated 02.04.2025, titled "Sandeep Vs. Jyoti Rani", filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Karnal, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Jalandhar. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court, Karnal to the Court concerned.
10.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
03.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE (i) Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable:
Yes/ No