IN T 119 Amarawati Kuldeep K CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU 1. of the petit under Sectio (for short ‘t Court of Ad to a Court 2. i) ii) iii) iv) v) TA-657-2026 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR Transfer Application No.6 Date of decision :-14.05 awati Versus eep Kumar AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Ritesh K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. I GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed by a petition bearing No.HMA/588/2024 Sections 11 read with Section 5(i) of th hort ‘the Act’) titled “Kuldeep Kumar vs of Additional Principal Judge, Family C ourt of competent jurisdiction at Jalandh Learned counsel for the applican that the parties were married Hindu rites and rituals. That no child was born out of thi iii) that the applicant-wife is li respondent-husband and living mercy at Jalandhar (Punjab). iv) that the applicant is unemployed and totally dependent upon her husband is not paying anything That the proceedings arising out 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH n No.657 of 2026 (O & M) .05.2026 …..Applicant …..Respondent NIDHI GUPTA vocate d by applicant-wife is for transfer filed by respondent-husband of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 mar vs. Amrawati” pending in the mily Court, Fatehabad (Haryana) alandhar (Punjab). plicant has contended :- arried on 16.7.2024 according to t of this wedlock. is living separately from the living with her parents at their ployed, having no source of income n her parents; and the respondent- thing to her towards maintenance. ng out of petition :- VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document v) vi) 3. transfer of t learned cou unable to tr Fatehabad t Fatehabad i applicant ca 4. 5. counsel for unemployed is difficult Jalandhar to respondent Section 144 the submiss TA-657-2026 (O & M) (a) under Section 125 2026 filed by the applicant-wife, are p competent jurisdiction at Jalandh That the distance between place wife i.e. Jalandhar and the p Sections 11 read with Section 5 respondent-husband, pending Judge, Family Court, Fatehaba kilometers one side. that there is no proficient male applicant, who can accompany Court of proceedings at Fateha parents are old aged persons an ailments. It is inter alia on these groun er of the case, as detailed in para 1 abo d counsel for the applicant that the app e to travel the distance of 250 kilomete abad to Jalandhar. It is stated that be abad in Haryana State and District Jal ant cannot travel. I have heard learned counsel for I find no merit in the submiss el for the applicant as it is admit ployed; whereas the respondent is stated ficult for the respondent to take leave dhar to attend the proceedings of Court. ndent has not yet put in appearance i n 144 of BNSS filed by the applicant a bmission on behalf of the applicant tha 2 n 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No.118 of e, are pending in the Courts having alandhar (Punjab). place of residence of the applicant- the place of proceedings under on 5(i) of the Act, filed by the ding before the Addl. Principal tehabad (Haryana), is about 250 male member in the family of the ny her to visit and attend the Fatehabad (Haryana) because the ons and suffering from age related grounds that applicant prays for 1 above. It is further submitted by he applicant being a single lady is lometers of one side from District hat being a different State-District ict Jalandhar in Punjab-State, the sel for the applicant. ubmissions advanced by learned admitted that the applicant is stated to be working. As such, it leave from work and come to Court. It is also admitted that the ance in the petition filed under icant at Jalandhar. With regard to ant that the respondent can cause VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document harm to the for the app registered b 6. of transfer e However, in Court, as w which may Das’ wher dismissed t husband.Re Court wher applications Smt. Akhw Nisha alias 7. present case finding no m May 14, 202 Vijay Asija Whether spe Whether Rep TA-657-2026 (O & M) to the applicant, on Court query, it is a e applicant that no police complaint in ered by the applicant at any stage. This Court is well aware of the p nsfer emanating from matrimonial dispu ver, in certain similar cases as the prese , as well as this Court have refused relie may be referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC 1 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court u ssed the wife’s application seeking tran Reference in this regard may also b where, in similar circumstances this C ations filed on behalf of the wife. The Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Sin alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav. Accordingly, in view of the fa nt case as noted above, as also the prece g no merit in this application, the same i Pending application(s) if any sta , 2026 Asija speaking/reasoned Yes / No er Reportable Yes / No 3 it is admitted by learned counsel aint in that regard has ever been f the preponderance of law in cases l disputes is in favour of the wife. present one, the Hon’ble Supreme d relief to the wife. One such case SCC 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit urt under similar circumstances ng transfer of petition filed by the also be made to two cases of this this Court had dismissed transfer e. These are: TA no. 126 of 2018 eet Singh; and TA No. 299 of 2019 the facts and circumstances of the e precedents of Case law as above, same is hereby dismissed. ny stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document