IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.239 Date of Decision: 20.08.2025 AMANDEEP KAUR ....Applicant Versus GURPREET SINGH .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Rajwinder Kaur Sohal, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

CM-18999-CII-2024 The present application has been filed for placing on record the medical record, as well as invoices and bank account passbook, as Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6, respectively.

In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and the requisite documents are taken on record.

Main case The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. DMC/132/2024, titled ‘Gurpreet Singh Vs. Amandeep Kaur’, filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at SAS Nagar.

Upon notice, the respondent made appearance through counsel and filed reply.

Counsel for the parties heard.

At the very outset, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 01.07.2018. Two sons born from the said wedlock, who are in the age group of 2-5 years, are in the care and custody of the applicant. On account of the matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separate. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant, to commute a distance of about 42 kilometres, from her place of residence, to defend the divorce petition.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the reply filed, submits that the distance is not more than 30 kilometres. Further, it is submitted that in the month of November, 2024 (though in the reply, it is mentioned as November, 2023), the respondent had met with an accident and he had sustained extensive injuries and he had undergone head surgery. The counsel makes reference to the medical record, annexed with the reply, as well as, discharge summary, copy whereof is Annexure R-1 and submits that the condition of the respondent remained very precarious and he had undergone ‘Craniotomy’. On account of this condition, he is not in a position to travel. Also, the counsel submits that at present, though the respondent has been discharged from the hospital, but however, he is barely able to walk and he is not in a position, even to communicate in a clear manner. On account of these circumstances, it is submitted that it shall be too harsh for the respondent also, to pursue the divorce petition, if so transferred.

In view of the submissions aforesaid, the counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant was healthy, at the time of filing of the divorce petition. Hence, it is falsely submitted that he is having various medical issues.

In view of the rival submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that generally, the Courts lean towards convenience of the wife, while considering the transfer application relating to the matrimonial dispute. However, it is not a thumb rule. Various other circumstances, spelt out from the material brought on record, also ought to be taken into consideration and thereupon, balancing of the convenience/inconvenience of both the sides, has to be made by the Courts. There are several factors, which are to be considered, while adjudicating upon the transfer application. Most important is about the financial viability of both the spouses, as well as fact of the children residing with either parent. Taking the same into consideration, also the distance between the two places, where the case is pending and where it is sought to be transferred, as well as, health issues of both the spouses, ought to be taken care of. Each case has to be decided on its own parametres. One distinctive detail may change the decision of the transfer applica