Punjab and Haryana High Court
TA/894/2026 of RITU RANI Vs RANDEEP SINGH on 10 September 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT KAITHAL RITU RANI RANDEEP SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Swati Tiwana, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. HARKESH MANUJA 1. The applicant of petition bearing Rani”, filed under Section (hereinafter to be referred as
IN THE HIG
RITU RANI
RANDEEP SIN
CORAM: HON
Present:
Ms
No
HARKESH MA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The app of petition bear Rani”, filed u (hereinafter to husband; from Ambala to learn
2. Briefly sta was solemnized namely, Rudran discord betwee 13 of the Act, husband. There came to be filed
3. Learned applicant-wife is
H COURT OF PUNJAB AND Date of Decis
Versus NGH
N'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKE . Swati Tiwana, Advocate for ne for the respondent. **** ANUJA, J. (ORAL) plicant-wife, by way of presen ring No. HMA/629/2026, titled under Section 13 of the o be referred as “the Act”) a the Court of learned Prin ned Principal Judge, Family C ating, the marriage between t d on 22.11.2020. Out of the nshika Chaudhary was born n the parties, the above men came to be preferred at t eupon, the present applicat d by the applicant-wife. counsel for the applicant, i s residing at her parental ho TA-894-202
D HARYANA AT KAITHAL
sion: SEPTEMBER 10, 2026
........Applicant
........Respondent ESH MANUJA the applicant.
nt application, seeks transfer d “Randeep Singh Vs. Ritu Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the instance of respondent- ncipal Judge, Family Court, Court, Kaithal. the applicant and respondent ir wedlock, one female child . On account of matrimonial ntioned petition under Section the instance of respondent- ion seeking transfer thereof inter alia, contends that the me at Kaithal. Accordingly, a r u
- , t d l n - f e a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Ambala to Family Court, Kaithal.
4. On the other hand, despite service, no one has appeared on behalf the respondent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the paper-book.
6. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed a petition under Section 144 of BNSS (Annexure P-2) for grant of maintenance which is pending adjudication at Family Court, Kaithal. Besides it, the applicant does not possess any independent source of income and is also taking care of her minor daughter who is also studying at Kaithal.
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 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 is pending adjudication at Kaithal, 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 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. HMA/629/2026, titled “Randeep Singh Vs. Ritu Rani”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kaithal. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Ambala to the Court concerned. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Family Court on 22.09.2026. Learned trial Court is requested to fix all the cases on the same date.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
10.09.2026
(HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No