IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 151 Baljit Kaur Maninder CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. 1. transfer of the petition respondent (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Maninder Singh vs. Baljit Kaur” p in the Family Court, Sirsa (Haryana) to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Samana, District Patiala (Punjab). 2. i) Transfer Application No.924 of 2025 (O & IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application Date of decision :-21.05.2026 Baljit Kaur Versus Maninder Singh CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Daljeet singh Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the applicant-wife. Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the respondent-husband. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed by applicant transfer of the petition bearing No.HMA/1233/2024 respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Maninder Singh vs. Baljit Kaur” p in the Family Court, Sirsa (Haryana) to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Samana, District Patiala (Punjab). Learned counsel for the applicant has contended : that the parties were married on Sikh rites and rituals. 924 of 2025 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No.924 of 2025 (O & M) .05.2026 …..Applicant …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Daljeet singh Randhawa, Advocate for Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate filed by applicant-wife is for bearing No.HMA/1233/2024 filed by husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Maninder Singh vs. Baljit Kaur” pending in the Family Court, Sirsa (Haryana) to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Samana, District Patiala (Punjab). Learned counsel for the applicant has contended :- the parties were married on 02.12.2006 according to VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ii) iii) iv) v) v) vi) 3. transfer of the Transfer Application No.924 of 2025 (O & That a male child was born out of this wedlock on 05.10.2009, who is presently admitted to be in the care and custody of the respondent iii) that the applicant-wife is living separately from the respondent-husband since Au iv) that the applicant is unemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent upon her parents; and the respondent-husband, who is an agriculturist having agricultural land of more than 70 acres besides the business of dairy farm and Rs.1,50,000/- per month and living a lavish and luxurious life is not paying anything to her towards maintenance. That the proceedings arising out of petitions : (a) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 No.DVAct/23/2025 dated 11.7.2025 (Annexure P-2); filed by the applicant-wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Samana, District Patiala (Punjab). That the distance between place of residence of the applicant-wife i.e. Samana, District Patiala (Punjab) the place of proceedings under filed by the respondent-husband, pending before the Family Court, Sirsa (Haryana), is about one side. that there is no proficient male member in the applicant, who can accompany her to visit and attend the Court of proceedings at Sirsa (Haryana) 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. 924 of 2025 (O & M) 2 That a male child was born out of this wedlock on 05.10.2009, who is presently admitted to be in the care and custody of the respondent-husband. wife is living separately from the husband since August 2023. that the applicant is unemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent upon her parents; and the , who is an agriculturist having agricultural land of more than 70 acres besides the business of dairy farm and earning more than per month and living a lavish and is not paying anything to her towards That the proceedings arising out of petitions :- under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing No.DVAct/23/2025 dated 11.7.2025 ; wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Samana, District Patiala That the distance between place of residence of the Samana, District Patiala (Punjab) and the place of proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, husband, pending before the Family Court, Sirsa (Haryana), is about 177 kilometers 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 Sirsa (Haryana) 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. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. respondent that the applicant cannot c proceedings. It has further been submitted that the minor child is in the exclusive care and custody of the respondent evident from Annexure A 5. that the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, referred to by the applicant, stood dismissed for non Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, vide order date A copy of the said order was handed over in Court and the factum of dismissal was not disputed by learned counsel for the applicant. 6. that a fresh complaint under the Domestic Violen been filed by the applicant at Samana, though particulars thereof could not be furnished during the course of hearing. It has also been argued that the respondent is actually residing at Fatehabad and not at Sirsa, and that the school rece school situated at Fatehabad. According has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act at Sirsa only to harass the applicant 7. submitted that the respondent owns agricultural land and residential property both at Sirsa and Fatehabad and regularly commutes the short distance Transfer Application No.924 of 2025 (O & Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-husband has opposed the present petition and submitted that the applicant-wife frequently travels to Canada and, therefore, cannot claim inability to travel to Sirsa for attending Court proceedings. It has further been submitted that the minor child is in the exclusive care and custody of the respondent evident from Annexure A-1, i.e. the school fee receipt of the chi Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, referred to by the applicant, stood dismissed for non-prosecution by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, vide order date A copy of the said order was handed over in Court and the factum of dismissal was not disputed by learned counsel for the applicant. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a fresh complaint under the Domestic Violen been filed by the applicant at Samana, though particulars thereof could not be furnished during the course of hearing. It has also been argued that the respondent is actually residing at Fatehabad and not at Sirsa, and that the school receipt annexed with the reply pertains to a school situated at Fatehabad. According has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act at Sirsa only to harass the applicant-wife. Responding thereto, learned counsel for the respon submitted that the respondent owns agricultural land and residential property both at Sirsa and Fatehabad and regularly commutes the short distance of about 40 kilometers between the two places. It has 924 of 2025 (O & M) 3 , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband has opposed the present petition and submitted wife frequently travels to Canada and, therefore, laim inability to travel to Sirsa for attending Court proceedings. It has further been submitted that the minor child is in the exclusive care and custody of the respondent-husband, which is 1, i.e. the school fee receipt of the child. Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, referred to by prosecution by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, vide order dated 11.02.2026. A copy of the said order was handed over in Court and the factum of dismissal was not disputed by learned counsel for the applicant. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a fresh complaint under the Domestic Violence Act has since been filed by the applicant at Samana, though particulars thereof could not be furnished during the course of hearing. It has also been argued that the respondent is actually residing at Fatehabad and not at ipt annexed with the reply pertains to a school situated at Fatehabad. Accordingly, the respondent-husband has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act at Sirsa only to Responding thereto, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent owns agricultural land and residential property both at Sirsa and Fatehabad and regularly commutes the between the two places. It has VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document further been submitted that the minor child resid respondent at Sirsa and attends school at Fatehabad. 8. carefully gone through the record. 9. out of matrimonial disputes, the deserves due consideration. However, such principle cannot be applied in a mechanical manner and each case is required to be examined on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. 10. residing with the respondent care of the child and attending to his educational and day needs. The respondent is, therefore, not only managing his professional responsibilities but is a a sole caregiver towards the minor child. 11. regarding inconvenience, the applicant record any compelling or exceptional circumstance inability to travel to Sirsa. Rather, it has specifically been asserted by the respondent, and not effectively controverted by the applicant, that she frequently travels to Canada. In such circumstances, it cannot be readily accepted that approximately 177 kilometers for attending Court proceedings on occasional dates of hearing. 12. distance between Samana and Sirsa is not such as wou Transfer Application No.924 of 2025 (O & further been submitted that the minor child resid respondent at Sirsa and attends school at Fatehabad. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. It is true that while considering transfer petitions arising out of matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife ordinarily deserves due consideration. However, such principle cannot be applied in a mechanical manner and each case is required to be examined on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present case, it is not disput residing with the respondent-husband, who is single care of the child and attending to his educational and day needs. The respondent is, therefore, not only managing his professional responsibilities but is also discharging the obligations of a sole caregiver towards the minor child. On the other hand, except for making a general assertion regarding inconvenience, the applicant-wife has failed to place on record any compelling or exceptional circumstance inability to travel to Sirsa. Rather, it has specifically been asserted by the respondent, and not effectively controverted by the applicant, that she frequently travels to Canada. In such circumstances, it cannot be readily accepted that the applicant is unable to undertake a journey of approximately 177 kilometers for attending Court proceedings on occasional dates of hearing. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the distance between Samana and Sirsa is not such as wou 924 of 2025 (O & M) 4 further been submitted that the minor child resides with the respondent at Sirsa and attends school at Fatehabad. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have It is true that while considering transfer petitions arising convenience of the wife ordinarily deserves due consideration. However, such principle cannot be applied in a mechanical manner and each case is required to be examined on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present case, it is not disputed that the minor son is husband, who is single-handedly taking care of the child and attending to his educational and day-to-day needs. The respondent is, therefore, not only managing his lso discharging the obligations of On the other hand, except for making a general assertion wife has failed to place on record any compelling or exceptional circumstance demonstrating her inability to travel to Sirsa. Rather, it has specifically been asserted by the respondent, and not effectively controverted by the applicant, that she frequently travels to Canada. In such circumstances, it cannot be the applicant is unable to undertake a journey of approximately 177 kilometers for attending Court proceedings on This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the distance between Samana and Sirsa is not such as would make access VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to justice illusory or impossible for the applicant. The journey can reasonably be undertaken within only on dates fixed by the Court. 13. 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 application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. also be made to two cases of this Court wher circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav. 14. the present case, particularly the custody and welfare of the minor child being with the respondent compelling hardship shown by the applicant down in the judgm considered opinion that no ground is made out for transfer of the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Sirsa. 15. application, the same is hereby d Transfer Application No.924 of 2025 (O & to justice illusory or impossible for the applicant. The journey can reasonably be undertaken within two to three only on dates fixed by the Court. This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in 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 application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband.Reference in this regard may also be made to two cases of this Court wher 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. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the custody and welfare of the minor child being with the respondent-husband, the absence of any compelling hardship shown by the applicant down in the judgments referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for transfer of the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Sirsa. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present transfer application, the same is hereby dismissed. 924 of 2025 (O & M) 5 to justice illusory or impossible for the applicant. The journey can two to three hours and is required This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in 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 view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the custody and welfare of the minor husband, the absence of any compelling hardship shown by the applicant-wife, and the law laid ents referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for transfer of the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Sirsa. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present transfer ismissed. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document stand disposed of. May 21, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Transfer Application No.924 of 2025 (O & Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 924 of 2025 (O & M) 6 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document