Is A Wife Always Entitled To Get Matrimonial Proceedings Shifted To Her City?
The Punjab and Haryana High Court said No, and clarified that transfer petitions filed by wives cannot be allowed mechanically, as every matrimonial dispute must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused to transfer a matrimonial case from Patiala to Jalandhar after Justice Nidhi Gupta observed that the marriage had survived only for “16-17 days” and the husband was suffering from mental health issues, including depression and anxiety.
The wife had approached the High Court seeking transfer of the husband’s petition filed under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She argued that she was unemployed, dependent on her parents and unable to travel around 155 kilometres to attend hearings in Patiala. She also claimed that there was no male family member who could accompany her because her parents were elderly and suffering from age-related illnesses.
On the other hand, the husband opposed the plea and placed his medical records before the Court. His counsel informed the Court that:
The respondent is suffering from depression, sadness, fear, anxiety, social phobia, lack of confidence etc. and he cannot travel alone and always needs the support of her parents for the same.
The High Court noted that the parties had separated within days of marriage and there was no child from the wedlock. The Court further observed that the wife had failed to show any exceptional hardship or medical condition preventing her from travelling for court hearings.
Justice Nidhi Gupta observed that “it is hardly a two-hour journey” between Jalandhar and Patiala and clarified that appearances were required only on dates fixed by the Family Court and not daily.
The Court also acknowledged that matrimonial transfer petitions are generally decided in favour of wives. However, the Court made it clear that such relief is not automatic in every case.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in “Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das” and earlier Punjab & Haryana High Court rulings in “Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh” and “Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav”, Justice Gupta observed that transfer requests can be rejected where facts and circumstances do not justify shifting the case.
After considering the medical documents and overall circumstances, the High Court dismissed the wife’s transfer petition and allowed the matrimonial proceedings to continue before the Patiala Family Court.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied In This Case |
| Section 12, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Allows annulment of marriage on specific legal grounds. | Husband’s annulment petition was pending at Patiala Family Court. |
| Section 125 Cr.P.C. | Provides maintenance to wife, children and parents. | Wife stated maintenance proceedings were already pending at Jalandhar. |
| Section 144 BNSS | Deals with preventive orders to maintain peace and order. | Wife referred to pending proceedings at Jalandhar. |
| Transfer Application (TA) | Seeks transfer of a case from one court to another. | Wife sought transfer of husband’s case from Patiala to Jalandhar. |
| Family Court Jurisdiction | Governs matrimonial and family disputes. | Main matrimonial proceedings were pending before Family Court, Patiala. |
| “Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das” (2006) 9 SCC 197 | Supreme Court ruling on transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes. | Relied upon to refuse automatic transfer in favour of wife. |
| “Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh” | Punjab & Haryana High Court precedent on transfer disputes. | Cited to support dismissal of transfer plea. |
| “Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav” | High Court precedent refusing transfer petition by wife. | Used as supporting precedent by the Court. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Punarbir Kaur vs. Karandeep Singh
- Case Number: Transfer Application No. 1267 of 2024 (O&M)
- Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
- Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
- Date of Decision: 14 May 2026
- Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:077071
- Counsels:
- For Applicant/Wife: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
- For Respondent/Husband: Mr. Nitish Garg, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Matrimonial litigation should be decided on evidence and hardship, not on automatic gender-based assumptions.
- Mental health struggles faced by men deserve equal legal recognition and sensitivity.
- Convenience alone cannot become a weapon to pressure the opposite party in matrimonial disputes.
- Courts must balance fairness for both sides instead of treating one party as automatically disadvantaged.
- Every transfer request must be examined on its own facts rather than following a fixed formula in favour of either side.
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.
