Husband's Offer To Bear Travel Expenses Can't Automatically Defeat Wife's Transfer Plea: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has transferred a divorce petition filed by a husband from the Family Court at Hisar to the Family Court at Sonepat, on the wife's application, holding that a husband's offer to bear travelling expenses for hearings does not constitute an inflexible rule defeating a wife's prayer for transfer, and that the convenience of female litigants deserves due weightage in matrimonial transfer matters. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 322]

Justice Harkesh Manuja said, "The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent do not advance his case. In Preeti Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the facts of that case, found that no substantial ground for transfer was made out and, therefore, instead directed the husband to bear the travel and stay expenses of the wife and her companion for every hearing on which her presence was required. The said decision, therefore, cannot be read as laying down an inflexible rule that an offer by the husband to bear travelling expenses would, in every case, defeat a wife's prayer for transfer. The question of transfer has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case."

The parties married in 2013 and have a minor son, born in 2015. Amid matrimonial discord, the husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Hisar. The wife, who resides with her widowed mother at Sonepat along with the minor child, sought transfer of the petition to the Family Court at Sonepat.

Counsel for the wife argued that she and her minor son reside with her widowed mother at Sonepat, warranting transfer of the case closer to her residence.

Counsel for the husband opposed the transfer, submitting that the husband was willing to bear the wife's travelling expenses for hearings requiring her presence.

The Court noted that the wife had earlier filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Sonepat, which had since been disposed of, with challenges by both parties pending before the High Court itself, indicating the matter's connection to Sonepat.

It further noted the wife's specific pleas that she had no independent source of income, was dependent on her widowed mother and younger brother, and was solely responsible for the day-to-day care of her minor son while residing at Sonepat.

Relying on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, 2002  and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005 , the Court reiterated the settled principle that courts deciding transfer applications must give greater weightage to the convenience of female litigants, and that transfer should ordinarily be allowed to avoid subjecting them to undue hardship.

Akvinder Kaur case was held distinguishable on facts, since the present case additionally involved the wife's lack of independent income, her dependence on her widowed mother, and her responsibility for the minor child, coupled with connected Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings already before the High Court arising from Sonepat.

The Court also distinguished Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) , where transfer was declined because grandparents were available to look after the child and the husband had offered to bear expenses, noting that in the present case, it was the wife herself who was residing with her widowed mother and solely responsible for the child's care, with no independent income, making the factual foundation of Anindita Das inapplicable.

Allowing the transfer application, the Court held that the wife had made out sufficient grounds for transfer, keeping in view the settled principle that the convenience of the wife deserves due weightage in matrimonial matters.

The petition was transferred from the Family Court, Hisar to the Family Court, Sonepat, with directions for the case record to be transmitted accordingly and for the parties to appear before the Sonepat court on 18.09.2026, with the connected cases to be listed on the same date.

Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order