Divorce Case Transfer Petition | Husband Even Offered To Pay Wife’s Travel Expenses, Yet Case Was Transferred To Her City: P&H High Court

Can a husband stop the transfer of his divorce case by offering to pay his wife’s travel expenses? The Punjab and Haryana High Court says such an offer alone cannot decide the issue, and each matrimonial transfer plea must turn on its own facts.

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has transferred a divorce petition filed by a husband from the Family Court, Hisar, to the Family Court, Sonepat, holding that a husband’s willingness to pay his wife’s travelling expenses cannot automatically defeat her request for transfer.

Justice Harkesh Manuja passed the order in Sonam Rani v. Naresh Kumar, while allowing the wife’s transfer application. The husband had instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Hisar. The parties were married on November 13, 2013, and have a son born on February 9, 2015.

The wife sought transfer of the husband’s divorce case to Sonepat, stating that she was living there with her minor son and widowed mother. The husband opposed the request and offered to bear the travelling expenses required whenever her presence before the Hisar court was necessary. He relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma and the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Smt. Akvinder Kaur v. Sh. Gurpreet Singh.

The High Court also noted that the wife had earlier instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court at Sonepat. The High Court disposed of that proceeding, but challenges filed by both sides remained pending. The wife had further pleaded that she had no independent source of income, depended upon her widowed mother and younger brother, and was responsible for the day-to-day care of the minor child.

Referring to Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, the Court reproduced the principle laid down by the Supreme Court:

“While deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants, and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience, and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.”

The husband’s reliance on Preeti Sharma did not persuade the Court. In that case, the Supreme Court had found that sufficient grounds for transfer were not made out and instead directed the husband to pay the wife’s travel and stay expenses whenever her presence was required.

However, the High Court clarified that this cannot become an automatic formula for every matrimonial case. It held that the husband's offer to pay travelling expenses does not, by itself, require rejection of the wife’s transfer application. The facts and circumstances of each case must be separately examined.

The Court also distinguished Smt. Akvinder Kaur v. Sh. Gurpreet Singh. Here, the wife had specifically pleaded that she had no independent income, was living with her widowed mother and was caring for the minor child. The Court also considered the connected maintenance litigation arising from the Sonepat proceedings. It therefore found that her claimed inconvenience could not adequately be addressed merely by making the husband pay travelling expenses.

The Court further considered Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, where the Supreme Court refused transfer after considering the availability of grandparents to care for the child and the husband’s willingness to bear the wife’s travel and stay expenses. The High Court found the present facts different because the wife herself was living with her widowed mother, claimed to have no independent income and was stated to be responsible for the child’s care.

Ultimately, the Court held that the convenience of the wife deserves due weightage in matrimonial transfer matters and that sufficient grounds for transfer had been established. The husband’s Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act divorce petition was consequently transferred from Hisar to Sonepat.

The parties were directed to appear before the Sonepat court on September 18, 2026, and the concerned court was asked to ensure that all connected cases were listed on the same date.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Husband’s willingness to pay travel costs was not enough to keep his own divorce case at Hisar.
• The Court gave greater weight to the wife's convenience, along with her claimed lack of income and responsibility for the minor child.
• The Court made it clear that paying travel expenses is not an automatic defence against a wife’s transfer application.
• For husbands, this means financial accommodation alone may not protect the forum chosen for their own matrimonial case.
• Matrimonial transfer disputes again show the practical imbalance men face: the husband may file the case, offer to bear the cost, and still be required to litigate in the wife’s city.