TA-698-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 Jyoti Satyawan CORAM: Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. transfer of of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) HMA/68/2026 (Annexure P before the learned Family Court, Moonak, Sessions Division, Sa 2. 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-698 Date of Decision: Versus CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed by the peti transfer of petition filed by the petitioner herself of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) HMA/68/2026 (Annexure P-2) titled as ‘ before the learned Family Court, Kaithal Moonak, Sessions Division, Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioner i) Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 01.03.2017 ii) Three children i.e. 02 daughters and 1 son were out of the said wedlock, who and custody of the respondent iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are residing separately since 15.10.2025. iv) The petitioner has no source of income and is now residing with her live dependent upon the income of her live v) The distance between place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Moon proceedings filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal is about 70 kilometers on one side. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 698-2026 Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 .…Petitioner .... Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Prayer in this petition filed by the petitioner-wife is for the petitioner herself under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No. ‘Jyoti vs. Satyawan, pending to the learned Family Court, Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that :- Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was 01.03.2017. Three children i.e. 02 daughters and 1 son were born , who are presently in the care and custody of the respondent-husband. Due to matrimonial discord the parties are residing 15.10.2025. The petitioner has no source of income and is now ive-in partner at Moonak and dependent upon the income of her live-in partner. The distance between place of residence of the Moonak and the place of filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal kilometers on one side. It is very difficult RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.26 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-698-2026 3. allowed; and as ‘Jyoti vs. be transferred to the learned Family Court, Moonak, Sessions Division, Sangrur. 4. submissions advanced on behalf of the mentioned in harassment and differences in opinion and age difference between the petitioner and respondent, there remained between both of them. Therefo with one Naresh S/o Sh. Balwant and started residing with him in live in-relationship....’. 5. taking care of 03 minor children Not only does the respondent have to provide for the material needs of the minor children welfare. 6. respondent, the petitioner has no onerous live-in partner house petitioner as to why she is unable to travel Kaithal to attend to the proceedings dates of hearing 2026 -2- for her to frequently travel from to attend the Court proceedings. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be and petition bearing No. HMA/68/2026 (Annexure P vs. Satyawan, pending before the learned Family Court, Kaithal be transferred to the learned Family Court, Moonak, Sessions Division, Heard. No other argument submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner mentioned in para 7 of the petition that harassment and differences in opinion and age difference between the petitioner and respondent, there remained between both of them. Therefore, in the meantime, petitioner fell in love with one Naresh S/o Sh. Balwant and started residing with him in live relationship....’. On the other hand, respondent taking care of 03 minor children born out of the wedlock of the parties. Not only does the respondent have to provide for the material needs of the minor children, but is also responsible for From the facts noted above, it is clear that unlike the respondent, the petitioner has no onerous responsibility in partner house at Moonak. No cogent reason has been given by the petitioner as to why she is unable to travel to attend to the proceedings and that too not daily but only on the dates of hearing. Moreover, the petition for her to frequently travel from Moonak to Kaithal attend the Court proceedings. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be bearing No. HMA/68/2026 (Annexure P-2) titled pending before the learned Family Court, Kaithal be transferred to the learned Family Court, Moonak, Sessions Division, No other argument. I find no merit in the petitioner as, the petitioner has para 7 of the petition that ‘due to above humiliation, harassment and differences in opinion and age difference between the petitioner and respondent, there remained difference in understanding re, in the meantime, petitioner fell in love with one Naresh S/o Sh. Balwant and started residing with him in live- On the other hand, respondent-husband is single-handedly, born out of the wedlock of the parties. Not only does the respondent have to provide for the material needs of , but is also responsible for their mental and physical From the facts noted above, it is clear that unlike the responsibility and is living at her No cogent reason has been given by the petitioner as to why she is unable to travel short distance of 70 Kms. to and that too not daily but only on the Moreover, the petition bearing No. HMA/68/2026 From the facts noted above, it is clear that unlike the at her No cogent reason has been given by the to and that too not daily but only on the bearing No. HMA/68/2026 RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.26 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-698-2026 (Annexure P therefore, no ground is Moonak. 7. of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain similar cases as the present one, the Ho Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case which may be referred to is: SrijitDas’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application husband. 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 behalf of the wife. These are: Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; 2019 Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav. 8. present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, finding no 9. 21.05.2026 rishu 2026 -3- (Annexure P-2) has been filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal, therefore, no ground is made out to transfer the case from This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain similar cases as the present one, the Ho Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case which may be referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the 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 behalf of the wife. These are: Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; 2019 Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, merit in this petition, the same is hereby Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 2) has been filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal, o transfer the case from Kaithal to This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in cases of 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 (2006) 9 SCC 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances seeking transfer of petition filed by the 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 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. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 2) has been filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal, This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. n’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case ‘Anindita Das Vs. ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances seeking transfer of petition filed by the Reference in this regard may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer 8 TA No. 299 of Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.26 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.