IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 150 Paramjit Kaur @ Paramjeet Kaur Lakhwinder Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. transfer of the petition respondent Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Lakhwinder Singh vs. Paramjit Kaur” (Annexure P to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal (Haryana). 2. i) ii) iii) Transfer Application No.888 of 2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application Date of decision :-21.05.2026 Paramjit Kaur @ Paramjeet Kaur Versus Lakhwinder Singh CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Bharat Julka, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. T.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed by applicant transfer of the petition bearing No.DMC/26/2025 respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Lakhwinder Singh vs. Paramjit Kaur” (Annexure P-1) pending in the Famil to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal (Haryana). Learned counsel for the applicant has contended : that the parties were married on That two male children were born out of this wedlock who are in the care and custody of the respondent husband. iii) that the applicant-wife is living separately from the respondent-husband since 15.4.2024 parents at their mercy at Patiala (Punjab). 888 of 2025 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No.888 of 2025 (O & M) .05.2026 …..Applicant …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. T.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the respondent. filed by applicant-wife is for bearing No.DMC/26/2025 filed by husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Lakhwinder Singh vs. Paramjit 1) pending in the Family Court, Patiala (Punjab) to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal (Haryana). Learned counsel for the applicant has contended :- the parties were married on 27.1.2008. That two male children were born out of this wedlock, who are in the care and custody of the respondent- wife is living separately from the 15.4.2024 and living with her parents at their mercy at Patiala (Punjab). VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document iv) v) v) vi) 3. transfer of the 4. this petition, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the allegations l husband are baseless and concocted. Regarding transfer of the petition filed by the respondent submitted that two minor children are husband and he ha Transfer Application No.888 of 2025 (O & M) iv) that the applicant is unemploy income and totally dependent upon her parents; and the respondent-husband is not paying anything to her towards maintenance. That the proceedings arising out of petitions : (a) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No.MNT125/111/2025 (b) CHI/138/2025 under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC filed by the applicant-wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Karnal (Haryana). That the distance between place of residence of the applicant-wife i.e. Karnal (Haryana) proceedings under 13 of the Act, filed by the respondent husband, pending before the Family Court, Patiala (Punjab), is about 140 kilometers on cannot travel this distance as she is not earning that there is no proficient male member in the family of the applicant, who can accompany her to visit and attend the Court of proceedings at Patiala (Punjab) because the parents are old aged persons and suffering from age related ailments. It is inter alia on these grounds that applicant transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above. To controvert the averments made by the applicant in this petition, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the allegations leveled by the applicant against the respondent husband are baseless and concocted. Regarding transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband, learned submitted that two minor children are residing with the respondent husband and he has been responsibly fulfilling all needs and 888 of 2025 (O & M) 2 that the applicant is unemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent upon her parents; and the husband is not paying anything to her That the proceedings arising out of petitions :- Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No.MNT125/111/2025; CHI/138/2025 under Sections 323, 34, 406, A and 506 IPC wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Karnal (Haryana). That the distance between place of residence of the Karnal (Haryana) and the place of of the Act, filed by the respondent- husband, pending before the Family Court, Patiala kilometers one side and she cannot travel this distance as she is not earning anything. that there is no proficient male member in the family of the applicant, who can accompany her to visit and attend the Court of proceedings at Patiala (Punjab) because the parents are old aged persons and suffering from age on these grounds that applicant prays for case, as detailed in para 1 above. To controvert the averments made by the applicant in this petition, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that eveled by the applicant against the respondent- husband are baseless and concocted. Regarding transfer of the husband, learned counsel has residing with the respondent- s been responsibly fulfilling all needs and VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document requirements of submits that on the other hand the applicant is not having any responsibility of any kind and enjoying the company of her parents and has filed the respondent under Section respondent physically and mentally. Learned counsel further contends that it is not more than two hours journey to reach the Court of proceedings at Patiala (Punjab) and that too not on daily basis, just on the date fixed in the case. The applicant has not shown her physical or mental inability which will prove that she cannot in a position to travel such a meager d as an able body, why she is not doing any job/work. 5. 6. view that unlike the respondent, the applicant responsibilit simultaneously single fulfilling all his handedly responsible for the mental and physical welfare of children as also has to ensure that all basic amenities are provided to them as also his career and education. In contrast, no extenuating circumstances have been brought to light by the applicant, on the basis of which it is shown that she is not in a positio relatively short distance of about hardly a two Transfer Application No.888 of 2025 (O & M) requirements of the children since their childhood. Learned counsel submits that on the other hand the applicant is not having any responsibility of any kind and enjoying the company of her parents and has filed the present petition for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act just to harass the respondent physically and mentally. Learned counsel further contends that it is not more than two hours journey to reach the Court proceedings at Patiala (Punjab) and that too not on daily basis, just on the date fixed in the case. The applicant has not shown her physical or mental inability which will prove that she cannot in a position to travel such a meager distance on the date as an able body, why she is not doing any job/work. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the facts as enumerated above, I am of the view that unlike the respondent, the applicant responsibilities as it is the respondent who is working and simultaneously single-handedly looking after fulfilling all his duties in that respect i.e. the respondent is single handedly responsible for the mental and physical welfare of as also has to ensure that all basic amenities are provided to as also his career and education. In contrast, no extenuating circumstances have been brought to light by the applicant, on the basis of which it is shown that she is not in a positio relatively short distance of about 140 kilometers as admittedly, it is hardly a two-hour journey between Karnal (Haryana) to Patiala 888 of 2025 (O & M) 3 childhood. Learned counsel submits that on the other hand the applicant is not having any responsibility of any kind and enjoying the company of her parents the present petition for transfer of the petition filed by of the Act just to harass the respondent physically and mentally. Learned counsel further contends that it is not more than two hours journey to reach the Court proceedings at Patiala (Punjab) and that too not on daily basis, just on the date fixed in the case. The applicant has not shown her physical or mental inability which will prove that she cannot in a istance on the date of hearings and as an able body, why she is not doing any job/work. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the facts as enumerated above, I am of the view that unlike the respondent, the applicant-wife is having no ies as it is the respondent who is working and handedly looking after both children and duties in that respect i.e. the respondent is single- handedly responsible for the mental and physical welfare of both the as also has to ensure that all basic amenities are provided to as also his career and education. In contrast, no extenuating circumstances have been brought to light by the applicant, on the basis of which it is shown that she is not in a position to travel the kilometers as admittedly, it is hour journey between Karnal (Haryana) to Patiala VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (Punjab), and that too, not daily but only on the date of hearing. applicant, being able bodied person the company of her parents. 7. cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain similar cases Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case which may be referred to is: 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s transfer of petition filed by the husband. also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav. the husband, Changanlal Solanki vs. Nikita Vipul Solanki, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id#2843797 to the convenience of the husband; and has dismissed prayer of the wife for transfer. 8. the present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, finding no merit in this dismissed. Transfer Application No.888 of 2025 (O & M) (Punjab), and that too, not daily but only on the date of hearing. applicant, being able bodied person sitting idle at home and enjoying the company of her parents. This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain similar cases Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case which may be referred to is: ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s transfer of petition filed by the husband.Reference in this regard may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: TA no. 126 of 2018 Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; and TA No. 299 of 2019 Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav. In identical circumstances, where the minor child was with the husband, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Changanlal Solanki vs. Nikita Vipul Solanki, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id#2843797 decided on 12.1.2026 has given precedence and preference to the convenience of the husband; and has dismissed prayer of the wife for transfer. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, finding no merit in this application, dismissed. 888 of 2025 (O & M) 4 (Punjab), and that too, not daily but only on the date of hearing. The sitting idle at home and enjoying This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain similar cases as the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case which may be referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking Reference in this regard may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on 126 of 2018 Smt. Akhwinder TA No. 299 of 2019 Nisha alias In identical circumstances, where the minor child was with the Hon’ble Supreme Court most recently in Vipul Changanlal Solanki vs. Nikita Vipul Solanki, (SC) : Law Finder Doc has given precedence and preference to the convenience of the husband; and has dismissed prayer of the wife the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as application, the same is hereby VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document May 21, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Transfer Application No.888 of 2025 (O & M) Pending application(s) if any stand disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 888 of 2025 (O & M) 5 Pending application(s) if any stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document