Can a wife get her husband’s divorce case transferred merely by claiming inconvenience? The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that transfer cannot be granted as a matter of course when the wife fails to substantiate her inability to travel with convincing material.
CHANDIGARH: In a judgment dated June 9, 2026, Justice Nidhi Gupta of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a wife’s plea seeking transfer of her husband’s divorce case from Amritsar to Hoshiarpur. The Court held that merely citing inconvenience is not enough and that transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes must be supported by genuine hardship.
The wife had approached the High Court seeking transfer of the divorce proceedings filed by her husband in Amritsar. She told the Court that she was living with her parents in Hoshiarpur, was unemployed, had no independent source of income and that her husband was not paying maintenance.
She further submitted that criminal proceedings arising from an FIR registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 509 of the IPC, along with proceedings under Section 125 CrPC initiated by her, were already pending in Hoshiarpur. According to her, transferring the divorce case to Hoshiarpur would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and save her from inconvenience.
The wife also pointed out that the distance between Hoshiarpur and Amritsar is approximately 150 kilometres. She argued that there was no male family member available to accompany her because her parents were elderly and suffering from health issues.
The husband, who appeared before the Court in person, opposed the transfer plea. He argued that the petition had been filed only to harass him. He submitted that the marriage had lasted for barely five months and disputes arose because of the wife’s conduct.
He further claimed that the wife was professionally engaged as a fashion model and financially independent. According to him, her brother had been practising as an advocate in Hoshiarpur for more than two decades, and transferring the case there could prejudice him.
The husband also informed the Court that the Supreme Court had stayed further proceedings in the FIR registered against him. He argued that the wife regularly travelled for her professional assignments, which contradicted her claim that she could not travel to Amritsar.
After considering the submissions of both parties, the High Court observed that while courts generally give importance to the convenience of the wife in matrimonial transfer petitions, the principle cannot be applied mechanically in every case.
The Court noted that no child had been born from the marriage. It also found that the wife had failed to place any material on record to show that she was physically or otherwise incapable of travelling to Amritsar.
Justice Nidhi Gupta observed:
“Moreover, from the material placed on record, including photographs annexed by respondent No.1, the applicant-wife appears to be professionally active. Prima facie, therefore, the plea that she is incapable of travelling to Amritsar does not inspire confidence.”
The Court also took note of the husband’s contention that the wife travelled regularly for work. It observed that the distance of around 150 kilometres could be covered within two to three hours and that Family Court appearances are not required on a daily basis.
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197, the High Court reiterated that transfer of matrimonial proceedings cannot be granted as a matter of routine in the absence of genuine hardship.
Finding that no sufficient ground had been made out to justify shifting the proceedings, the Court dismissed the wife’s transfer petition.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED
| Law / Provision | What It Deals With | How It Arose In This Case |
| Section 406 IPC | Criminal breach of trust involving dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property. | The wife had initiated criminal proceedings under this provision, which were pending at Hoshiarpur. |
| Section 498-A IPC | Cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a married woman. | Proceedings initiated by the wife were already pending in Hoshiarpur and were cited as a ground for transfer. |
| Section 509 IPC | Insulting the modesty of a woman through words, gestures or acts. | Included in the FIR relied upon by the wife to seek consolidation of proceedings. |
| Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance for wife, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. | The wife argued that maintenance proceedings filed by her were pending in Hoshiarpur. |
| Transfer Jurisdiction of High Court | Power of the High Court to transfer matrimonial proceedings in appropriate cases. | The wife sought transfer of the divorce petition from Amritsar to Hoshiarpur. |
| Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197 | Supreme Court precedent stating that transfer cannot be granted routinely merely because sought by the wife. | Relied upon by the High Court while dismissing the transfer petition. |
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: XXXX v. XXXXX
- Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
- Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
- Date of Order: 09 June 2026
- Counsels:
- For Applicant-Wife: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate.
- For the Respondent: Respondent No. 1, Danish Kumar, appeared in person.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Convenience cannot become an automatic weapon to shift matrimonial proceedings. Courts must examine whether genuine hardship actually exists.
- Mere allegations of inability to travel are not enough. If the facts suggest otherwise, such claims can be rejected.
- Equality before law means husbands are also entitled to a fair forum and protection from unnecessary litigation tactics.
- Matrimonial transfer petitions should be decided on evidence and practicality, not on assumptions based solely on gender.
- While genuine difficulties deserve compassion, courts must guard against the misuse of procedural remedies that can increase the burden, cost, and harassment faced by men in family disputes.
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.