CHANDIGARH: <\/em>The Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/a><\/strong> recently refused to transfer a matrimonial case from Patiala to Jalandhar<\/strong> after Justice Nidhi Gupta<\/strong> observed that the marriage had survived only for \u201c16-17 days\u201d and the husband was suffering from mental health issues, including depression and anxiety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife had approached the High Court seeking transfer of the husband\u2019s petition filed under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/strong>. She argued that she was unemployed, dependent on her parents and unable to travel around 155 kilometres<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, the husband opposed the plea and placed his medical records before the Court. His counsel informed the Court that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court noted that the parties had separated within days of marriage and there was no child from the wedlock<\/strong>. The Court further observed that the wife had failed to show any exceptional hardship or medical condition<\/strong> preventing her from travelling for court hearings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Nidhi Gupta observed that \u201cit is hardly a two-hour journey\u201d<\/em><\/strong> between Jalandhar and Patiala and clarified that appearances were required only on dates fixed by the Family Court and not daily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> in every case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in \u201cAnindita Das Vs. Srijit Das\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and earlier Punjab & Haryana High Court rulings in \u201cSmt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and \u201cNisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav\u201d<\/em><\/strong>, Justice Gupta observed that transfer requests can be rejected where facts and circumstances do not justify shifting the case<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After considering the medical documents and overall circumstances, the High Court dismissed the wife\u2019s transfer petition<\/strong> and allowed the matrimonial proceedings to continue before the Patiala Family Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 12, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Allows annulment of marriage on specific legal grounds.<\/td> Husband\u2019s annulment petition was pending at Patiala Family Court.<\/td><\/tr> Section 125 Cr.P.C.<\/strong><\/td> Provides maintenance <\/a>to wife, children and parents.<\/td> Wife stated maintenance proceedings were already pending at Jalandhar.<\/td><\/tr> Section 144 BNSS<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Deals with preventive orders to maintain peace and order.<\/td> Wife referred to pending proceedings at Jalandhar.<\/td><\/tr> Transfer Application (TA)<\/strong><\/td> Seeks transfer of a case from one court to another.<\/td> Wife sought transfer of husband\u2019s case from Patiala to Jalandhar.<\/td><\/tr> Family Court<\/a> Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td> Governs matrimonial and family disputes.<\/td> Main matrimonial proceedings were pending before Family Court, Patiala.<\/td><\/tr> \u201cAnindita Das Vs. Srijit Das\u201d (2006) 9 SCC 197<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court<\/a> ruling on transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes.<\/td> Relied upon to refuse automatic transfer in favour of wife.<\/td><\/tr> \u201cSmt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh\u201d<\/strong><\/td> Punjab & Haryana High Court precedent on transfer disputes.<\/td> Cited to support dismissal of transfer plea.<\/td><\/tr> \u201cNisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav\u201d<\/strong><\/td> High Court precedent refusing transfer petition by wife.<\/td> Used as supporting precedent by the Court.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n