Professionally Active Wife's Plea Of Inability To Travel Doesn't Inspire Confidence: P&H High Court Declines Transfer Of Divorce Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking transfer of a divorce case instituted by her husband from Amritsar to Hoshiarpur, holding that no sufficient ground or genuine hardship was made out to warrant such transfer.

Justice Nidhi Gupta said, "Moreover, from the material placed on record, including photographs annexed by respondent No.1, the applicant-wife appears to be professionally active. Prima facie, therefore, the plea that she is incapable of travelling to Amritsar does not inspire confidence."

The applicant-wife submitted that she is residing with her parents at Hoshiarpur, is unemployed, and has no independent source of income. It was contended that the husband is not paying maintenance.

She further pointed out that criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR under Sections 406, 498-A and 509 IPC, as well as proceedings under Section 125 CrPC initiated by her, are pending at Hoshiarpur. It was argued that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconvenience, the divorce case should also be transferred to Hoshiarpur.

The applicant also cited the distance of approximately 150 kilometers between Hoshiarpur and Amritsar and submitted that there is no male family member available to accompany her, as her parents are elderly and ailing.

Opposing the plea, the respondent-husband, appearing in person, argued that the transfer petition was filed to harass him. He submitted that the marriage lasted only about five months and that disputes arose due to the conduct of the applicant.

He further contended that the applicant is professionally engaged as a fashion model and is financially independent. It was also pointed out that her brother has been practicing as an advocate in Hoshiarpur for over two decades, which could prejudice him if the case is transferred.

The respondent also referred to a Supreme Court order staying further proceedings in the FIR registered against him, and argued that the applicant regularly travels for professional assignments, thereby negating her claim of inability to travel.

The Court observed that while the convenience of the wife is ordinarily given due consideration in matrimonial transfer petitions, such a principle cannot be applied mechanically.

It noted that no child was born out of the wedlock and that the applicant had not placed any material to establish that she was physically or otherwise incapable of travelling to Amritsar. The Court also took note of the respondent's contention that the applicant is professionally active and travels for work.

The Court further observed that the distance of about 150 kilometers can be covered within two to three hours and that court appearances are not required on a daily basis.

Referring to cases, including Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197, the Court reiterated that transfer cannot be granted as a matter of course in the absence of genuine hardship.

Holding that no sufficient ground was made out, the Court dismissed the transfer petition.

Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the applicant.

Respondent No.1-Danish Kumar in person.

Title: XXXX v. XXXXX