##PAGE1##

TA-1311-2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

104 TA-1311-2025

Date of Decision: 18.05.2026

Nisha @ Nidhi .…Petitioner

Versus

Parvesh .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this petition filed by the petitioner-wife is for

transfer of the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section

12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) bearing

No. HMA/787/2023 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Parvesh vs. Nisha @

Nidhi’. pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar to

a Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurugram, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that :-

i) The parties were married on 26.02.2023 according to

Hindu Rites and Ceremonies.

ii) No child was born out of the said wedlock.

iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are residing

separately since 27.02.2023.

iv) The distance between place of residence of the

petitioner-wife i.e. Gurugram and the place of

proceedings filed by the respondent-husband at

Jhajjar is about 50 kilometers on one side. It is very

difficult for her to frequently travel from Gurugram

to Jhajjar to attend the Court proceedings.

v) The petitioner has no source of income and is

residing her at parental house.

vi) One petition bearing No. HMA/988/24 dated

10.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) filed under Section 9 of

RISHU KATARIA

2026.05.21 19:45

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment.

TA-1311-2025 -2-

the Act is pending adjudication before the Family

Court at Gurugram.

3. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be

allowed and petition HMA/787/2023 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Parvesh

vs. Nisha @ Nidhi’ pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family

Court, Jhajjar be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at

Gurugram, Haryana.

4. Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate has put in appearance on

behalf of the respondent and submits Vakalatnama which is taken on

record. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the

submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the

marriage subsisted only for 01 day. Further, learned counsel submits that

the petitioner-wife has no responsibility; whereas respondent is working

in Indian Railways and cannot travel frequently from Jhajjar to

Gurugram. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has filed the petition

under Section 9 of the Act (Annexure P-2) only after the filing of present

petition by the respondent-husband. It is submitted that petitioner-wife is

a Graduate, but despite that she is no working. As such, learned counsel

for the respondent prays for dismissal of the present petition.

5. No other argument has been made on behalf of the parties. I

have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the

case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to dispute or

controvert the above assertions of the respondent. I find merit in the

submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent.

6. In view of the facts as enumerated above, I am of the view

that no extenuating circumstances have been brought to light by the

RISHU KATARIA

2026.05.21 19:45

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment.

TA-1311-2025 -3-

petitioner, on the basis of which it is shown that she is not in a position to

travel to Jhajjar and that too not daily but only on the dates of hearing.

This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in cases of transfer

emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However,

in certain similar cases as the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as

well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case which

may be referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. SrijitDas

wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed

the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the

husband.Reference in this regard may also be made to two cases of this

Court