IN TH 135-I Kanika Sh Shri Danis CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU 1. transfer of husband un ‘the Act’) another” pe Court, Amr 2. i) ii) TA-191-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR Transfer Application No Date of decision :-14.05 ika Sharma Versus Danish Kumar and another AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent No.1-Danish Kum HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed fer of the petition bearing No.HMA/1 and under Section 13 of the Hindu Ma Act’) titled “Shri Danish Kumar ” pending in the Court of Additiona Amritsar to a Court of competent jur Learned counsel for the applic that the parties were married Hindu rites and rituals. No child was born out of the s 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH ion No.191 of 2025 (O & M) .05.2026 …..Applicant …..Respondents E NIDHI GUPTA ocate h Kumar in person. filed by applicant-wife is for MA/1751 filed by respondent- du Marriage Act,1955 (for short mar vs. Kanika Sharma and ditional Principal Judge, Family tent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur. applicant has contended :- arried on 11.9.2021 according to f the said wedlock. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document iii) iv) v) v) vi) 3. transfer of 4. has oppose levelled by that the ma brief perio account of TA-191-2025 (O & M) iii) that the applicant-wife is li respondent-husband and liv Hoshiarpur. iv) that the applicant is unemplo income and totally dependent respondent-husband, is not towards maintenance. The proceedings arising ou 22.7.2022 under Sections 4 registered at Police Station Sa petition under Section 125 applicant-wife, are pending competent jurisdiction at Hosh That the distance between p applicant-wife i.e. Hoshiar proceedings under Section 1 respondent-husband, pending Judge, Family Court, Amritsa one side. that there is no proficient mal the applicant, who can accomp the Court of proceedings a parents are old aged persons h It is inter alia on these groun fer of the case, as detailed in para 1 ab Per contra, respondent No.1, opposed the present petition and su led by the applicant-wife are false a the matrimonial relationship between t period of about five months and t unt of the conduct and behaviour of the 2 is living separately from the d living with her parents at employed, having no source of endent upon her parents and the not paying anything to her ng out of FIR No.112 dated ions 406, 498 and 509 IPC, ion Sadar, Hoshiarpur; as well as n 125 Cr.P.C., filed by the ending in the Court having Hoshiarpur. een place of residence of the oshiarpur and the place of ion 13 of the Act, filed by the nding before the Addl. Principal mritsar, is about 150 kilometers nt male member in the family of ccompany her to visit and attend ings at Faridabad because the sons having age related ailments. grounds that applicant prays for ra 1 above. No.1, who is present in person, nd submits that the allegations alse and concocted. He submits ween the parties lasted only for a and that the disputes arose on r of the applicant herself. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. is professi independen the presen respondent brother of Hoshiarpur caused to re 6. applicant- dated 06.0 further proc A IPC hav seeks to dis were stayed merits, yet case are pre 7. applicant- with her pr it cannot be is argued t such as wo applicant- appearance a daily basi TA-191-2025 (O & M) Respondent No.1 further subm rofessionally engaged as a fashion endent with sufficient earnings of he present transfer petition has been ndent and to exert pressure upon him er of the applicant-wife has been pra iarpur for the last about 20-25 years ed to respondent No.1. Insofar as the criminal pro -wife are concerned, respondent 06.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble er proceedings in the FIR registered un C have been stayed. Though learned s to distinguish the said order by conte stayed only for exploring the possibili ts, yet the fact remains that further p are presently stayed. Respondent No.1 has furt -wife is admittedly travelling to va her professional assignments and mod nnot be said that she is unable to unde gued that the distance between Hosh as would render it impossible or exce -wife to attend the proceeding arance is required only on the dates fix ly basis. 3 r submits that the applicant-wife shion model and is financially of her own. It is contended that been filed only to harass the on him, particularly because the en practicing as an Advocate at years. Thus, prejudice may be l proceedings initiated by the ndent No.1 has referred to order on’ble Supreme Court whereby ered under Sections 406 and 498- earned counsel for the applicant contending that the proceedings ssibility of settlement and not on ther proceedings in the criminal s further submitted that the g to various places in connection d modelling work and, therefore, o undertake travel to Amritsar. It Hoshiarpur and Amritsar is not r excessively burdensome for the eedings, particularly when the tes fixed by the Court and not on VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. carefully co 9. convenienc transfer pe mechanical individual convenienc hardship h jurisdiction 10. out of the responsibil Further, ex no material wife is phy Amritsar fo denied tha Supreme Advocate a 11. distance b kilometers, covered wi TA-191-2025 (O & M) I have heard learned counsel ully considered the rival submissions. It is true that in matrimonia enience of the wife is given due we fer petitions. However, such princip anical manner ignoring the facts an idual case. The Court is required to st enience of both the parties and to ship has been made out warrant diction. In the present case, admitted of the wedlock and the applicant- nsibilities relating to care or upbr er, except making a general assertion aterial has been placed on record to e is physically incapable or otherwise ge itsar for attending the proceedings. Moreover, learned counsel f ed that proceedings in FIR have bee eme Court; or that brother of the cate at Hoshiarpur since past 20-25 ye This Court also cannot lose nce between Hoshiarpur and Amrit eters, which, as rightly contended by red within about two to three hours. 4 ounsel for the parties and have sions. imonial disputes, ordinarily the ue weightage while considering rinciple cannot be applied in a acts and circumstances of each d to strike a balance between the d to examine whether genuine arranting exercise of transfer mittedly no child has been born -wife is not burdened with upbringing of a minor child. sertion regarding inconvenience, rd to establish that the applicant- wise genuinely unable to travel to nsel for the applicant has not ve been stayed by the Hon’ble f the applicant is a practicing 25 years. t lose sight of the fact that the Amritsar is approximately 150 ded by respondent No.1, can be ours. The attendance before the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Family Cou not on a da 12. photograph to be profe incapable o 13. transfer pet the wife exceptions disclose an as a matter 14. 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-191-2025 (O & M) ily Court is also required only on the d n a day-to-day basis. Moreover, from the material p ographs annexed by respondent No.1, professionally active. Prima facie, the able of travelling to Amritsar does not This Court is conscious of th fer petitions arising out of matrimonia wife ordinarily deserves preferen ptions to the said rule and where the ose any substantial hardship, transfer n matter of course. 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 ref ‘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 the dates fixed in the matter and terial placed on record, including No.1, the applicant-wife appears cie, therefore, the plea that she is oes not inspire confidence. s of the settled principle that in imonial disputes, convenience of eference. However, there are ere the facts of the case do not nsfer need not be granted merely e of the preponderance of law in trimonial disputes is in favour of ar 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 and.Reference in this regard may this Court where, in similar sed transfer applications filed on o. 126 of 2018 Smt. Akhwinder TA No. 299 of 2019 Nisha alias VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15. present cas ground has to Hoshiarp 16. petition, the 17. of. May 14, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo TA-191-2025 (O & M) In view of the overall facts nt case, this Court is of the considered nd has been made out for transfer of oshiarpur. Consequently, finding no me ion, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any , 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 6 facts and circumstances of the sidered opinion that no sufficient fer of the petition from Amritsar no merit in the present transfer if any, shall also stand disposed ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document