TA-1720-2025 (O&M) 213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kavita Rani Sachin Kumar CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S.Killianwali, Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner petition filed by the respondent Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) Kumar Vs. Kavita before the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court Family Court, Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 08.02.2011 wedlock, who are admittedly residing separately since Ma 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above mentioned petition filed by the respondent Marriage Act, from 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- TA Date of Decision : VERSUS CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. S.S.Killianwali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) Kumar Vs. Kavita” bearing case No.HMA/234 Principal Judge, Family Court Barnala Family Court, Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the 08.02.2011. One daughter and one son , who are admittedly in the care and custody of the residing separately since March 2024 due to matrimonial discord. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above mentioned petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section Marriage Act, from Barnala to Malout on account of the following reasons: -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-1720-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.05.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Salathia, 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) seeking divorce titled as “Sachin 234/2024 (Annexure P-1) pending Barnala to the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the One daughter and one son were born out of their in the care and custody of the respondent. Parties 2024 due to matrimonial discord. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above husband under Section 13 of the Hindu on account of the following reasons:- wife is for transfer of the of the Hindu Marriage Sachin 1) pending Principal Judge, Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the of their are Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above- of the Hindu TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1720-2025 (O&M) i) not have the means to travel the distance of about from ii) filed by the petitioner and a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Annexures P Malout iii) admitted that the petitioner is a graduat the petitioner has failed to make out any ground as to why she is not working. It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allowed and the afore-mentioned petition filed under Section transferred from the Family Court, 4. Per contra, opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that children are in the care and custody of the respondent. the respondent is working as an Insurance Agent and it is very difficult for him to work and pay maintenance to the petitioner as also look children. It is also submitted that the cause of action had ari matrimonial home is in Barnala 5. No other argument is raised parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the afore-noted facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the 2025 (O&M) That the petitioner is unemployed, therefore, the petitioner does not have the means to travel the distance of about from Malout to Barnala; That two cases being a petition under Section 12 of filed by the petitioner and a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively are already pending at Malout; iii) On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner is a graduat the petitioner has failed to make out any ground as to why she is not working. It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allowed and the mentioned petition filed under Section ansferred from the Family Court, Barnala to Malout Per contra, Ld counsel for the respondent opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that children are in the care and custody of the respondent. the respondent is working as an Insurance Agent and it is very difficult for him to work and pay maintenance to the petitioner as also look children. It is also submitted that the cause of action had ari matrimonial home is in Barnala. No other argument is raised on parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the noted facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the -2- hat the petitioner is unemployed, therefore, the petitioner does not have the means to travel the distance of about 130 kms one way two cases being a petition under Section 12 of DV Act filed by the petitioner and a maintenance petition under Section 125 3, respectively are already pending at On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner is a graduate and is physically fit, as such the petitioner has failed to make out any ground as to why she is not It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allowed and the mentioned petition filed under Section 13 of HMA Annexure P-1 be Malout. Ld counsel for the respondent-husband vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that both the children are in the care and custody of the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent is working as an Insurance Agent and it is very difficult for him to work and pay maintenance to the petitioner as also look-after both the minor children. It is also submitted that the cause of action had arisen at Barnala as the behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the noted facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the hat the petitioner is unemployed, therefore, the petitioner does kms one way DV Act filed by the petitioner and a maintenance petition under Section 125 3, respectively are already pending at On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has , as such the petitioner has failed to make out any ground as to why she is not It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allowed and the 1 be husband vehemently both the It is further submitted that the respondent is working as an Insurance Agent and it is very difficult for him to after both the minor sen at Barnala as the behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the noted facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1720-2025 (O&M) respondent is working as an Insurance Agent and is single the minor children by providing not only for their material requirements but also ensuring their mental and physical well admission, is not engaged in any work, this Court afore-mentioned petition filed under Section 13 of HMA. 7. 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 t this Court have ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das circumstances dismissed the wife’s applicatio 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 of the wife. These are: Gurpreet Singh Yadav’. In any event, as noted above, due to information, no Ground is made out for grant of prayer made by the petitioner. 8. Accordin case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case Law as noted above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed May 22, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) respondent is working as an Insurance Agent and is single inor children by providing not only for their material requirements but also ensuring their mental and physical well-being, whereas the petitioner, by her own ion, is not engaged in any work, this Court mentioned petition filed under Section 13 of HMA. 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 declined 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 transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwi Gurpreet Singh’; and TA No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer ’. In any event, as noted above, due to information, no Ground is made out for grant of prayer made by the petitioner. 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 merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- respondent is working as an Insurance Agent and is single-handedly taking care of inor children by providing not only for their material requirements but also being, whereas the petitioner, by her own ion, is not engaged in any work, this Court is not inclined to transfer the mentioned petition filed under Section 13 of HMA. 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, o the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as relief to the wife. One such case is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar n 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 ’. In any event, as noted above, due to the concealment of material information, no Ground is made out for grant of prayer made by the petitioner. gly, 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 handedly taking care of inor children by providing not only for their material requirements but also being, whereas the petitioner, by her own to transfer the 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, o the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar n 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 nder Kaur Vs. Sh. TA No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer concealment of material gly, 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document