TA-436-202 IN THE HIG 241 Tannu Kamal CORAM: Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. transfer of th the Hindu M 145/2026 da (Annexure P Sonipat to a 2. 2026 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-43 Date o Versus M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. LR Sharma, Advocate for th I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed b r of the petition filed by respondent indu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘th 26 dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) xure P-1) pending in the Court of Pri to a Court of competent jurisdiction Learned counsel for the petition i) The parties were married Hindu Rites and customs. ii) No child was born out of iii) Due to matrimonial dis residing separately. iv) The distance between petitioner-wife i.e. Pa proceedings filed by pending before the Prin ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 436-2026 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 .…Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA e for the petitioner. iled by the petitioner-wife is for dent-husband under Section 13 of ort ‘the Act’) bearing No. DMC/ 1) titled as ‘Kamal vs. Tannu’ of Principal Judge, Family Court, iction at Panipat. etitioner, inter alia, submits that :- arried on 27.11.2024 according to stoms. out of the said wedlock. ial discord the parties are now een place of residence of the e. Panipat and the place of by the respondent-husband, e Principal Judge, Family Court, RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-436-202 3. allowed and (Annexure P a Court of co 4. behalf of th which is take opposes the and submits kilometers. M months. Lea had threate consequence his family m for dismissal 5. have heard l 2026 -2- Sonipat, is about 52 kil stated that petitioner ‘is n v) The petitioner has no so dependent upon her pa learned counsel for the p the Court about the educ petitioner. It is accordingly, prayed that d and petition bearing No. DMC/ xure P-1) be transferred from the lear rt of competent jurisdiction at Panipat Mr. Manoj Pundir, Advocate, of the respondent-husband and sub is taken on record. Learned counsel fo es the submissions advanced by learn bmits that the distance between Son . Moreover, the marriage has sub . Learned counsel submits that duri hreatened the mother of the res uences; and to file false case against mily members. As such, learned coun missal of the present petition. No other argument has been m eard learned counsel for the parties a 52 kilometers on one side. It is ‘is not able to travel’ no source of income and is fully er parents. On a Court query, r the petitioner is unable to inform e educational qualification of the that the present petition may be DMC/145/2026 dated 25.02.2026 e learned Family Court, Sonipat to nipat. ocate, has put in appearance on nd submits Vakalatnama in Court nsel for the respondent vehemently y learned counsel for the petitioner en Sonipat and Panipat is only 52 as subsisted only for a period of 02 at during this period the petitioner e respondent-husband with dire gainst the respondent-husband and d counsel for the respondent prays een made on behalf of the parties. I rties and carefully gone through the I the RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-436-202 case file. I respondent. 6. that no exte petitioner, on travel to Son This Court i emanating fr in certain sim well as this may be refer wherein Hon the wife’s husband.Ref Court where applications Smt. Akhw 2019 Nisha 7. present case finding no m 8. 14.05.2026 rishu 2026 -3- ile. I find merit in the submissions dent. In view of the facts as enumer o extenuating circumstances have b ner, on the basis of which it is shown to Sonipat and that too not daily but ourt is well aware of the preponderan ting from matrimonial disputes is in f ain similar cases as the present one, th s this Court have refused relief to the e referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 in Hon’ble Supreme Court under sim ife’s application seeking transfer Reference in this regard may also where, in similar circumstances this ations filed on behalf of the wife. The Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet isha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Y Accordingly, in view of the fa t case as noted above, as also the prec g no merit in this petition, the same is h Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable issions advanced on behalf of the numerated above, I am of the view ave been brought to light by the hown that she is not in a position to ly but only on the dates of hearing. nderance of law in cases of transfer is in favour of the wife. However, one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as to the wife. One such case which 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. SrijitDas’ er similar circumstances dismissed ansfer of petition filed by the also be made to two cases of this s this Court had dismissed transfer fe. These are: TA no. 126 of 2018 rpreet Singh; and TA No. 299 of eer Yadav. the facts and circumstances of the he precedents of Case law as above, me is hereby dismissed. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the the ove, RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.