IN TH 114 Kajal Sumit CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU is for trans respondent 1955 (for s the Court o of compete 2. wife has in Kaithal wit the matrim unemploye dependent TA-310-2026 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR Transfer Application No Date of decision :-14.05 Versus AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Karan Ranjha, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vinay Singh Rathee, Advo Ms. Vaishali Malik, Advocate for the respondent. HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition r transfer of the petition bearing No. H ndent-husband under Section 13 of (for short, ‘the Act’) titled as “Sumit ourt of learned Principal Judge, Famil mpetent jurisdiction at Kaithal. Learned counsel appearing o inter alia contended that the appli with her single mother after havin matrimonial home. It is submitte ployed, has no independent source ndent upon her mother, who is stated t 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH ion No.310 of 2026 (O & M) .05.2026 …..Applicant …..Respondent E NIDHI GUPTA ocate , Advocate with vocate tition filed by the applicant-wife No. HMA/825/2025 filed by the 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Sumit vs. Kajal”, pending before Family Court, Rohtak, to a Court ring on behalf of the applicant- applicant is presently residing at having been compelled to leave bmitted that the applicant is ource of income and is entirely tated to be old and suffering from VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.15 09.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ailments. husband is Nagaland, maintenanc initiated b Domestic competent inconvenie petition file Kaithal. Le Kaithal and the absenc difficult an and every d 3. TA-310-2026 (O & M) ents. Learned counsel further subm and is serving in the Air Force an land, but despite being gainfully emp tenance to the applicant. It is also c ted by the applicant under the Pr estic Violence Act, 2005 are alre etent Court at Kaithal and, there venience and multiplicity of litigati ion filed by the respondent-husband d al. Learned counsel has further argue al and Rohtak is approximately 130 k absence of any male member to acc cult and unsafe for the applicant-wife very date of hearing. Learned counsel for the applic i) that the parties were according to Hindu rites ii) that no child was born o iii) that the applicant-wife from the respondent-hus is residing with her sing iv) that the applicant is une income and is wholly d for sustenance. v) that proceedings arisin under the Protection o Violence Act, 2005 b pending before the comp 2 submits that the respondent- rce and is presently posted at y employed, he is not paying any also contended that proceedings he Protection of Women from re already pending before the therefore, in order to avoid litigation at different places, the and deserves to be transferred to argued that the distance between 130 kilometers one way and, in to accompany her, it would be wife to undertake travel on each applicant has further contended :- were married on 03.12.2022 u rites and ceremonies. born out of the said wedlock. wife has been living separately husband since 04.12.2024 and single mother at Kaithal. is unemployed, has no source of holly dependent upon her mother arising out of a petition filed tion of Women from Domestic 005 by the applicant-wife are e competent Court at Kaithal. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.15 09.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. respondent petition an are baseles husband is Nagaland. native plac familial ob controverte residing on the applica Departmen applicant is travelling particularly not on a d transfer pe respondent journey fro therefore, n TA-310-2026 (O & M) vi) that the distance betwe approximately 130 kilom vii) that there is no profic family of the applicant, visit and attend the Cou as the applicant is livin is old and used to remai Per contra, learned counsel a ndent-husband has opposed the pra ion and submitted that the allegations baseless and concocted. It is subm and is serving in the Air Force an land. Whenever he obtains leave fr e place at Rohtak to look after his lial obligations. Learned counsel for roverted the assertion made on behalf ing only with her ailing mother. It is s pplicant is serving as an Assistant S rtment. Learned counsel has argued cant is a female, it cannot be presum lling from Kaithal to Rohtak to a cularly when the distance is not subst n a daily basis. It has further been fer petition has been filed only with ndent physically and mentally. Learn ey from Kaithal to Rohtak takes app fore, no undue hardship would be c 3 between Kaithal and Rohtak is 0 kilometers one side. proficient male member in the licant, who can accompany her to e Court of proceedings at Rohtak s living with single mother, who remain ill. nsel appearing on behalf of the he prayer made in the present gations levelled by the applicant submitted that the respondent- rce and is presently posted at ave from service, he visits his r his aged parents and fulfil his el for the respondent has further behalf of the applicant that she is . It is submitted that the father of tant Sub Inspector in the Police argued that merely because the resumed that she is incapable of to attend Court proceedings, t substantial and the hearings are been contended that the present with an intention to harass the Learned counsel submits that the es approximately two hours and, d be caused to the applicant in VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.15 09.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document attending th pointed out the Bharati PGIMS, R are also pen 5. gone throug 6. out of mat deserves d applied me examined o 7. serving in specifically Rohtak to a the other ha no excepti record by financially attending th 8. approximat journey ca Further, th TA-310-2026 (O & M) ding the proceedings before the Family ted out that FIR No.218 under Sections haratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 stands S, Rohtak against the applicant-wife lso pending at Rohtak. I have heard learned counsel through the paper-book with their able It is true that while considerin f matrimonial disputes, the convenie rves due consideration. However, suc ed mechanically in every case and ea ined on its own facts and attending cir In the present case, the respon ng in the Air Force and is presently ifically been asserted that whenever he ak to attend to the needs and well-bei ther hand, except for general assertion xceptional or compelling circumsta rd by the applicant to demonstrate cially or otherwise incapacitated from ding the Court proceedings. The distance between Kaithal ximately 130 kilometers and it is ey can conveniently be undertaken er, the applicant is not required to t 4 Family Court at Rohtak. It is also ections 78, 79, 351(3) and 3(5) of tands registered at Police Station wife and the said proceedings ounsel for the parties and have eir able assistance. sidering transfer petitions arising nvenience of the wife ordinarily er, such consideration cannot be and each matter is required to be ing circumstances. respondent-husband is admittedly sently posted at Nagaland. It has ever he is granted leave, he visits being of his aged parents. On sertions regarding inconvenience, umstance has been brought on nstrate that she is physically, ed from travelling to Rohtak for aithal and Rohtak is stated to be it is not disputed that the said rtaken within about two hours. d to travel on a daily basis, but VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.15 09.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document only on da absence of constitute a 9. that there i contention out that the in the Poli before this or other c attending p 10. cases of tra the wife. H Hon’ble Su the wife. O 197 ‘Anind under simil transfer of also be m circumstan behalf of th Kaur Vs. S Manisha v TA-310-2026 (O & M) on dates fixed by the Family Court. M nce of any serious hardship or a mal titute a sufficient ground for transfer of Though learned counsel for t there is no male member available to ention also stands disputed by the res hat the applicant’s father is serving as e Police Department. In any case, no re this Court to establish any genuine ther compelling circumstance preve ding proceedings at Rohtak. This Court is well aware of th of transfer emanating from matrimon ife. However, in certain similar cas ’ble Supreme Court, as well as this C ife. One such case which may be re ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das’ where r similar circumstances dismissed the fer of petition filed by the husband.Re be made to two cases of this mstances this Court had dismissed tra lf of the wife. These are: TA no. 126 r Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; and TA N isha vs. Amarveer Yadav. 5 ourt. Mere inconvenience, in the a male member cannot by itself sfer of proceedings. l for the applicant has submitted able to accompany her, the said the respondent, who has pointed ing as an Assistant Sub Inspector ase, no material has been placed enuine threat, medical incapacity preventing the applicant from e of the preponderance of law in trimonial disputes is in favour of lar cases as the present one, the this Court have refused relief to be referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court ed the wife’s application seeking Reference in this regard may this Court where, in similar sed transfer applications filed on 126 of 2018 Smt. Akhwinder TA No. 299 of 2019 Nisha alias VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.15 09.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. Court does transfer of to Kaithal. 12. same is her 13. of. May 14, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo TA-310-2026 (O & M) In view of the facts and circum t does not find any sufficient or com fer of the petition filed by the respon aithal. Consequently, finding no meri is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any , 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 6 circumstances noticed above, this or compelling ground warranting respondent-husband from Rohtak o merit in the present petition, the if any, shall also stand disposed ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.15 09.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document