##PAGE1##

TA-310-2026 (O & M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

114

Transfer Application No.310 of 2026 (O & M)

Date of decision :-14.05.2026

Kajal

…..Applicant

Versus

Sumit

…..Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Karan Ranjha, Advocate

for the applicant.

Mr. Vinay Singh Rathee, Advocate with

Ms. Vaishali Malik, Advocate

for the respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present petition filed by the applicant-wife

is for transfer of the petition bearing No. HMA/825/2025 filed by the

respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) titled as “Sumit vs. Kajal”, pending before

the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, to a Court

of competent jurisdiction at Kaithal.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-

wife has inter alia contended that the applicant is presently residing at

Kaithal with her single mother after having been compelled to leave

the matrimonial home. It is submitted that the applicant is

unemployed, has no independent source of income and is entirely

dependent upon her mother, who is stated to be old and suffering from

VIJAY ASIJA

2026.05.15 09.04

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

TA-310-2026 (O & M) 2

ailments. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-

husband is serving in the Air Force and is presently posted at

Nagaland, but despite being gainfully employed, he is not paying any

maintenance to the applicant. It is also contended that proceedings

initiated by the applicant under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are already pending before the

competent Court at Kaithal and, therefore, in order to avoid

inconvenience and multiplicity of litigation at different places, the

petition filed by the respondent-husband deserves to be transferred to

Kaithal. Learned counsel has further argued that the distance between

Kaithal and Rohtak is approximately 130 kilometers one way and, in

the absence of any male member to accompany her, it would be

difficult and unsafe for the applicant-wife to undertake travel on each

and every date of hearing.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended :-

i) that the parties were married on 03.12.2022

according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.

ii) that no child was born out of the said wedlock.

iii) that the applicant-wife has been living separately

from the respondent-husband since 04.12.2024 and

is residing with her single mother at Kaithal.

iv) that the applicant is unemployed, has no source of

income and is wholly dependent upon her mother

for sustenance.

v) that proceedings arising out of a petition filed

under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 by the applicant-wife are

pending before the competent Court at Kaithal.

VIJAY ASIJA

2026.05.15 09.04

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

TA-310-2026 (O & M) 3

vi) that the distance between Kaithal and Rohtak is

approximately 130 kilometers one side.

vii) that there is no proficient male member in the

family of the applicant, who can accompany her to

visit and attend the Court of proceedings at Rohtak

as the applicant is living with single mother, who

is old and used to remain ill.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent-husband has opposed the prayer made in the present

petition and submitted that the allegations levelled by the applicant

are baseless and concocted. It is submitted that the respondent-

husband is serving in the Air Force and is presently posted at

Nagaland. Whenever he obtains leave from service, he visits his

native place at Rohtak to look after his aged parents and fulfil his

familial obligations. Learned counsel for the respondent has further

controverted the assertion made on behalf of the applicant that she is

residing only with her ailing mother. It is submitted that the father of

the applicant is serving as an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Police

Department. Learned counsel has argued that merely because the

appl