Can courts transfer matrimonial cases mainly based on the wife’s convenience even when the husband is not heard?
The High Punjab & Haryana High Court held that courts generally lean towards the wife’s convenience and applied this principle while deciding the matter ex parte.
CHANDIGARH: In an order dated 01.05.2026, Justice Archana Puri of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a transfer petition filed by the wife and shifted the husband’s divorce case from Nuh to Faridabad. Notably, despite service, the husband did not appear before the Court, and the matter proceeded entirely ex parte, leaving his side unheard.
The case originates from a matrimonial dispute where the husband had initiated divorce proceedings under Muslim Law in Nuh. The wife approached the High Court seeking transfer of the case to Faridabad, where she is currently residing with the minor child and pursuing multiple legal proceedings against the husband.
The Court recorded:
“The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the divorce petition… pending in the Family Court (Camp Court) Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridabad.”
The wife claimed financial dependency and child care responsibility, stating she has no income. The Court observed:
“The applicant is not having any source of earning and she together with her minor son, is dependent upon her parental family.”
It was also brought on record that several cases, including FIR under Sections 323, 406, 498A IPC, Domestic Violence proceedings, and maintenance litigation, are already pending in Faridabad. The husband is required to appear in those matters, but the order highlights only his alleged failure to pay maintenance without examining his defence due to his absence.
While deciding the transfer, the Court reiterated a well-known principle:
“While adjudicating on the transfer application, relating to matrimonial dispute, the Courts generally lean towards the convenience of the wife, though, it may not be a thumb rule.”
However, in practice, the order demonstrates how this “general leaning” often becomes decisive. The reasoning then focused heavily on the wife’s situation:
“The most weighing factor to be considered in the present case, is about the applicant taking care of her child, while she herself has no source of earning.”
On the issue of maintenance, the Court noted:
“Even, the respondent had not bothered to pursue the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was decided ex parte. Thereafter also, he had not given any maintenance to the applicant.”
Despite the husband not being present to explain his position or contest these allegations, the Court proceeded to allow the transfer. Taking into account the distance of about 90 kilometres and the wife’s claims, the divorce case was shifted from Nuh to Faridabad, with directions for both parties to appear before the Family Court there within one month.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 323 IPC | Punishes causing hurt or physical injury | Wife filed FIR alleging physical harm by husband |
| Section 406 IPC | Punishes criminal breach of trust | Allegation of misuse of entrusted property in marriage |
| Section 498A IPC | Protects wife from cruelty by husband or relatives | Used by wife to initiate criminal case against husband |
| Section 34 IPC | Fixes joint liability for common intention | Applied in FIR to implicate multiple persons |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Provides civil remedies for domestic abuse | Wife filed separate DV case pending in Faridabad |
| Section 125 Cr.P.C. | Ensures maintenance to wife/child/parents | Wife obtained ex parte maintenance order; non-payment alleged |
| Muslim Law (Personal Law) | Governs marriage and divorce among Muslims | Husband filed divorce petition under this law |
| Section 24 CPC | Empowers courts to transfer cases | High Court used this to transfer case from Nuh to Faridabad |
Case Details
- Case Title: Soni vs Ashif Ali
- Case Number: TA-1440-2025
- Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
- Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Archana Puri
- Date of Decision: 01.05.2026
- Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:067523
- Counsels:
- For Applicant (Wife): Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate
- For Respondent (Husband): None appeared
Key Takeaways
- In matrimonial disputes, men often face decisions without full hearing; equal opportunity to present their case must be strictly ensured.
- The routine preference for one side’s convenience can place men at a procedural disadvantage and increase litigation burden.
- Ex parte orders frequently impact men severely, making it critical that courts exercise heightened caution before proceeding in absence.
- Transfer petitions should be decided on strict legal parameters, not presumptions that indirectly burden one party more than the other.
- True judicial neutrality requires that men receive the same level of consideration, protection, and fairness as any other litigant.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.