TA-1384-2024 (O&M) 144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Archana Naveen Kumar CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner petition filed by the respondent Act, 1955 seeking divorce titled as “Naveen Kumar Vs. Archana” bearing case No.HMA/106/2024 (Annexure P Judge, Chandigarh Bathinda. 2. It is, above-mentioned petition filed by the respondent Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) deserves to be transferred from learned Additional District Judg jurisdiction District Courts at Bathinda i) ii) 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- TA Date of Decision : 20.05.2026 VERSUS CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce titled as “Naveen Kumar Vs. Archana” bearing case No.HMA/106/2024 (Annexure P-1) pending before the Learned Judge, Chandigarh to the Court of competent jurisdiction It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mentioned petition filed by the respondent Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) deserves to be transferred Additional District Judge, Chandigarh District Courts at Bathinda on account of following reasons that: the petitioner was married to the respondent on 04.02.2014; no child is born out of this wedlock; -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-1384-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.05.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer of the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce titled as “Naveen Kumar Vs. Archana” bearing case 1) pending before the Learned Additional District to the Court of competent jurisdiction District Courts at submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mentioned petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) deserves to be transferred e, Chandigarh to the Court of competent on account of following reasons that:- the petitioner was married to the respondent on 04.02.2014; no child is born out of this wedlock; wife is for transfer of the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce titled as “Naveen Kumar Vs. Archana” bearing case Additional District District Courts at submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) deserves to be transferred to the Court of competent TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1384-2024 (O&M) iii) since April 2016; iv) pending at Bathinda; v) is therefore unable to travel the distance of Bathinda to Chandigarh; vi) constraints which do not permit her to travel to Chandigarh. It is accordingly, prayed that the above HMA be transferred from Chandigarh to Bathinda. 3. Per contra, ld counsel for the respondent submissions of the petitioner and submits that present petition has been filed by the petitioner only to harass the respondent. Ld. Counsel d Court to an order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the predecessor Bench of this Court directing the petitioner to file an affidavit with regard to her place of residence at Mathura. It is submitted that this was so because previously three cases, the same being a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C; an FIR No.85 of 2014; and a petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act at Mathura, despite the fact that the petitioner had never resided in Mathura. It is submitted t proceedings were filed by the petitioner at Mathura only to harass the respondent and also because maternal uncle of the petitioner is SSP at Mathura. Keeping in view the above facts, predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.03.2025 had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in respect of her place of residence. 2024 (O&M) iii) due to matrimonial discord, the parties are living separately since April 2016; application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C is pending at Bathinda; the petitioner is residing at the mercy of her widow mother and is therefore unable to travel the distance of Bathinda to Chandigarh; the petitioner is not working and, therefore, has financial constraints which do not permit her to travel to Chandigarh. It is accordingly, prayed that the above transferred from Chandigarh to Bathinda. Per contra, ld counsel for the respondent submissions of the petitioner and submits that present petition has been filed by the petitioner only to harass the respondent. Ld. Counsel d Court to an order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the predecessor Bench of this Court directing the petitioner to file an affidavit with regard to her place of residence at Mathura. It is submitted that this was so because previously three cases, the same being a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C; an FIR No.85 of 2014; and a petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act at Mathura, despite the fact that the petitioner had never resided in Mathura. It is submitted t proceedings were filed by the petitioner at Mathura only to harass the respondent and also because maternal uncle of the petitioner is SSP at Mathura. Keeping in view the above facts, predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.03.2025 had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in respect of her place of residence. -2- d, the parties are living separately application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C is the petitioner is residing at the mercy of her widow mother and is therefore unable to travel the distance of 250 kms on one side from the petitioner is not working and, therefore, has financial constraints which do not permit her to travel to Chandigarh. It is accordingly, prayed that the above-said petition under Section 13 transferred from Chandigarh to Bathinda. Per contra, ld counsel for the respondent-husband vehemently opposes submissions of the petitioner and submits that present petition has been filed by the petitioner only to harass the respondent. Ld. Counsel draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the predecessor Bench of this Court directing the petitioner to file an affidavit with regard to her place of residence at Mathura. It is submitted that this was so because previously the petitioner had filed three cases, the same being a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C; an FIR No.85 of 2014; and a petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act at Mathura, despite the fact that the petitioner had never resided in Mathura. It is submitted that the said proceedings were filed by the petitioner at Mathura only to harass the respondent and also because maternal uncle of the petitioner is SSP at Mathura. Keeping in view the above facts, predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.03.2025 had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in respect of her place of residence. d, the parties are living separately application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C is the petitioner is residing at the mercy of her widow mother and 250 kms on one side from the petitioner is not working and, therefore, has financial said petition under Section 13 husband vehemently opposes submissions of the petitioner and submits that present petition has been filed by the raws the attention of this Court to an order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the predecessor Bench of this Court directing the petitioner to file an affidavit with regard to her place of residence at the petitioner had filed three cases, the same being a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C; an FIR No.85 of 2014; and a petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act at Mathura, despite the fact hat the said proceedings were filed by the petitioner at Mathura only to harass the respondent and also because maternal uncle of the petitioner is SSP at Mathura. Keeping in view the above facts, predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.03.2025 had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit in respect of her place of residence. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1384-2024 (O&M) In pursuance to which petitioner had filed affidavit in which she had admitted that she had never resided at Mathura. 4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further points had previously filed petition under Section 13 of HMA at Jaipur. Petitioner herself had filed quashing petition before the Allahabad High Court. It is contended that therefore, contention of the petitioner that she is unable to tra 5. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is a qualified M.Sc in Micro-biology and is also a B.Ed Teacher, however, she has chosen not to work and therefore, her submission that she has financial constraints are of her own making. 6. It is lastly pointed out that at present there is no case pending at Bathinda as the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C already stands decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other argument is raised by behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the pet 8. No doubt the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife of the wife is to be given precedence over the convenience of the Husband. However, in the pre present case only to harass the respondent. The petitioner does not deny that previously cases were filed by her at Mathura and before the Allahabad High Court. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has 2024 (O&M) In pursuance to which petitioner had filed affidavit in which she had admitted that she had never resided at Mathura. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further points had previously filed petition under Section 13 of HMA at Jaipur. Petitioner herself had filed quashing petition before the Allahabad High Court. It is contended that therefore, contention of the petitioner that she is unable to tra It is further pointed out that the petitioner is a qualified M.Sc in biology and is also a B.Ed Teacher, however, she has chosen not to work and therefore, her submission that she has financial constraints are of her own It is lastly pointed out that at present there is no case pending at Bathinda as the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C already stands decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. It is accordingly at the present petition deserves to be dismissed. No other argument is raised by behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the pet No doubt the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife of the wife is to be given precedence over the convenience of the Husband. However, in the present case it would appear that the petitioner has filed the present case only to harass the respondent. The petitioner does not deny that previously cases were filed by her at Mathura and before the Allahabad High Court. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the -3- In pursuance to which petitioner had filed affidavit in which she had admitted that Ld. Counsel for the respondent further points out that the respondent had previously filed petition under Section 13 of HMA at Jaipur. Petitioner herself had filed quashing petition before the Allahabad High Court. It is contended that therefore, contention of the petitioner that she is unable to travel is without merit. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is a qualified M.Sc in biology and is also a B.Ed Teacher, however, she has chosen not to work and therefore, her submission that she has financial constraints are of her own It is lastly pointed out that at present there is no case pending at Bathinda as the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C already stands decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. It is accordingly at the present petition deserves to be dismissed. No other argument is raised by behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. No doubt the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife - to the effect that convenience of the wife is to be given precedence over the convenience of the Husband. sent case it would appear that the petitioner has filed the present case only to harass the respondent. The petitioner does not deny that previously cases were filed by her at Mathura and before the Allahabad High drawn the attention of this Court to the In pursuance to which petitioner had filed affidavit in which she had admitted that out that the respondent had previously filed petition under Section 13 of HMA at Jaipur. Petitioner herself had filed quashing petition before the Allahabad High Court. It is contended that vel is without merit. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is a qualified M.Sc in biology and is also a B.Ed Teacher, however, she has chosen not to work and therefore, her submission that she has financial constraints are of her own It is lastly pointed out that at present there is no case pending at Bathinda as the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C already stands decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. It is accordingly No other argument is raised by behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no No doubt the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating to the effect that convenience of the wife is to be given precedence over the convenience of the Husband. sent case it would appear that the petitioner has filed the present case only to harass the respondent. The petitioner does not deny that previously cases were filed by her at Mathura and before the Allahabad High drawn the attention of this Court to the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1384-2024 (O&M) affidavit filed by the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 07.03.2025 to submit that the petitioner was constrained to stay at the house of her maternal uncle at Mathura, as the respondent had deserted the petiti not denied that she has been undertaking the travel of more than 500 km from Bathinda to Mathura and Bathinda to Allahabad to pursue the cases filed by her at the said places. As such, petitioner is unable to give any cogen she is unable to travel the comparatively shorter distance of about 250 km from Bathinda to Chandigarh. 9. Further, admittedly, petitioner does not have any filial responsibility. Moreover, petitioner has failed to disclose in the pres qualified. Petitioner has also failed to mention that the proceeding under section 125 CRPC stands concluded. 10. This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case is: ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. Reference may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed t of the wife. These are: Gurpreet Singh Yadav’. 2024 (O&M) affidavit filed by the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 07.03.2025 to submit that the petitioner was constrained to stay at the house of her maternal uncle at Mathura, as the respondent had deserted the petiti not denied that she has been undertaking the travel of more than 500 km from Bathinda to Mathura and Bathinda to Allahabad to pursue the cases filed by her at the said places. As such, petitioner is unable to give any cogen she is unable to travel the comparatively shorter distance of about 250 km from Bathinda to Chandigarh. Further, admittedly, petitioner does not have any filial responsibility. Moreover, petitioner has failed to disclose in the pres qualified. Petitioner has also failed to mention that the proceeding under section 125 CRPC stands concluded. This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case is: ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. Reference may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed t 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 -4- affidavit filed by the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 07.03.2025 to submit that the petitioner was constrained to stay at the house of her maternal uncle at Mathura, as the respondent had deserted the petitioner there. Thus, Petitioner has not denied that she has been undertaking the travel of more than 500 km from Bathinda to Mathura and Bathinda to Allahabad to pursue the cases filed by her at the said places. As such, petitioner is unable to give any cogent reason as to why she is unable to travel the comparatively shorter distance of about 250 km from Further, admittedly, petitioner does not have any filial responsibility. Moreover, petitioner has failed to disclose in the present petition that she is highly qualified. Petitioner has also failed to mention that the proceeding under section This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. Reference may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. TA No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer affidavit filed by the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 07.03.2025 to submit that the petitioner was constrained to stay at the house of her maternal uncle at oner there. Thus, Petitioner has not denied that she has been undertaking the travel of more than 500 km from Bathinda to Mathura and Bathinda to Allahabad to pursue the cases filed by her at t reason as to why she is unable to travel the comparatively shorter distance of about 250 km from Further, admittedly, petitioner does not have any filial responsibility. ent petition that she is highly qualified. Petitioner has also failed to mention that the proceeding under section This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. Reference may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in ransfer applications filed on behalf TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. TA No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1384-2024 (O&M) 11. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case Law as noted above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. May 20, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2024 (O&M) Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case Law as noted above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case Law as noted above, finding no dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case Law as noted above, finding no TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document