Act’) titled “Shri Danish Kumar mar v. Kanika Sharma” pe ” pending in the Court of Additiona ditional Principal & Anr.

Judgment

1. Prayer in this petition filed filed by applicant-wife is for transfer of fer of the petition bearing No.HMA/1 MA/1751 filed by respondent- husband un and under Section 13 of the Hindu Ma du Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’)

Act’) titled “Shri Danish Kumar mar vs. Kanika Sharma and another” pe ” pending in the Court of Additiona ditional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amr Amritsar to a Court of competent jur tent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur.

2. Learned counsel for the applic applicant has contended :- i) that the parties were married arried on 11.9.2021 according to Hindu rites and rituals. ii) No child was born out of the s f the said wedlock. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-191-2025 (O & M) 2 iii) iii) that the applicant-wife is li is living separately from the respondent-husband and liv d living with her parents at Hoshiarpur. iv) iv) that the applicant is unemplo employed, having no source of income and totally dependent endent upon her parents and the respondent-husband, is not not paying anything to her towards maintenance. v) The proceedings arising ou ng out of FIR No.112 dated

22.7.2022 under Sections 4 ions 406, 498 and 509 IPC, registered at Police Station Sa ion Sadar, Hoshiarpur; as well as petition under Section 125 n 125 Cr.P.C., filed by ending applicant-wife, are pending the Court having competent jurisdiction at Hosh Hoshiarpur. v) That the distance between p een place of residence of the applicant-wife i.e. Hoshiar oshiarpur and the place of proceedings under Section 1 ion 13 of the Act, filed by the respondent-husband, pending nding before the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsa mritsar, is about 150 kilometers one side. vi) that there is no proficient mal nt male member in the family of the applicant, who can accomp ccompany her to visit and attend the Court of proceedings a ings at Faridabad because the parents are old aged persons h sons having age related ailments.

3. It is inter alia on these groun grounds that applicant prays for transfer of fer of the case, as detailed in para 1 ab ra 1 above.

4. Per contra, respondent No.1, No.1, who is present in person, has oppose opposed the present petition and su nd submits that the allegations levelled by led by the applicant-wife are false a alse and concocted. He submits that the ma the matrimonial relationship between t ween the parties lasted only for a brief perio period of about five months and t and that the disputes arose on account of unt of the conduct and behaviour of the r of the applicant herself. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-191-2025 (O & M) 3

5. Respondent No.1 further subm r submits that the applicant-wife is professi rofessionally engaged as a fashion shion model and is financially independen endent with sufficient earnings of he of her own. It is contended that the presen present transfer petition has been been filed only to harass the respondent ndent and to exert pressure upon him on him, particularly because the brother of er of the applicant-wife has been pra en practicing as an Advocate at Hoshiarpur iarpur for the last about 20-25 years years. Thus, prejudice may be caused to re ed to respondent No.1.

6. Insofar as the criminal pro l proceedings initiated by the applicant- -wife are concerned, respondent ndent No.1 has referred to order dated 06.0

06.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble on’ble Supreme Court whereby further proc er proceedings in the FIR registered un ered under Sections 406 and 498- A IPC hav C have been stayed. Though learned earned counsel for the applicant seeks to dis s to distinguish the said order by conte contending that the proceedings were stayed stayed only for exploring the possibili ssibility of settlement and not on merits, yet ts, yet the fact remains that further p ther proceedings in the criminal case are pre are presently stayed.

7. s Respondent No.1 has further submitted applicant- -wife is admittedly travelling to va g to various places in connection with her pr her professional assignments and mod d modelling work and, therefore, it cannot be nnot be said that she is unable to unde o undertake travel to Amritsar. It is argued t gued that the distance between Hosh Hoshiarpur and Amritsar is not such as wo as would render it impossible or exce r excessively burdensome for the applicant- -wife to attend the proceeding eedings, particularly when the appearance arance is required only on the dates fix tes fixed by the Court and not on a daily basi ly basis. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-191-2025 (O & M) 4

8. I have heard learned counsel ounsel for the parties and have carefully co sions. ully considered the rival submissions.

9. It is true that in matrimonia imonial disputes, ordinarily the convenienc enience of the wife is given due we ue weightage while considering transfer pe fer petitions. However, such princip rinciple cannot be applied in a mechanical anical manner ignoring the facts an acts and circumstances of each individual idual case. The Court is required to st d to strike a balance between the convenienc enience of both the parties and to d to examine whether genuine hardship h ship has been made out warrant arranting exercise of transfer jurisdiction diction.

10. In the present case, admitted mittedly no child has been born out of the of the wedlock and the applicant- -wife is not burdened with responsibil nsibilities relating to care or upbr upbringing of a minor child. Further, ex er, except making a general assertion sertion regarding inconvenience, no material aterial has been placed on record to e rd to establish that the applicant- wife is phy is physically incapable or otherwise ge wise genuinely unable to travel to Amritsar fo itsar for attending the proceedings. Moreover, learned counsel f nsel for the applicant has not denied tha ed that proceedings in FIR have bee ve been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme eme Court; or that brother of the f the applicant is a practicing Advocate a cate at Hoshiarpur since past 20-25 ye 25 years.

11. This Court also cannot lose t lose sight of the fact that the distance b nce between Hoshiarpur and Amrit Amritsar is approximately 150 kilometers, eters, which, as rightly contended by ded by respondent No.1, can be covered wi red within about two to three hours. ours. The attendance before the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-191-2025 (O & M) 5 Family Cou ily Court is also required only on the d the dates fixed in the matter and not on a da n a day-to-day basis.

12. Moreover, from the material p terial placed on record, including photograph ographs annexed by respondent No.1, No.1, the applicant-wife appears to be profe professionally active. Prima facie, the cie, therefore, the plea that she is incapable o able of travelling to Amritsar does not oes not inspire confidence.

13. This Court is conscious of th s of the settled principle that in transfer pet fer petitions arising out of matrimonia imonial disputes, convenience of the wife wife ordinarily deserves preferen eference. However, there are exceptions ptions to the said rule and where the ere the facts of the case do not disclose an ose any substantial hardship, transfer n nsfer need not be granted merely as a matter matter of course.

14. This Court is well aware of th e of the preponderance of law in cases of tra of transfer emanating from matrimon trimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. H ife. However, in certain similar cas ar cases as the present one, the Hon’ble Su ’ble Supreme Court, as well as this C this Court have refused relief to the wife. O ife. One such case which may be ref be referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ‘Anind ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das’ where wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under simil r similar circumstances dismissed the ed the wife’s application seeking transfer of fer of petition filed by the husband.Re and.Reference in this regard may also be m be made to two cases of this this Court where, in similar circumstan mstances this Court had dismissed tra sed transfer applications filed on behalf of th lf of the wife. These are: TA no. 126 o. 126 of 2018 Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. S r Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; and TA N TA No. 299 of 2019 Nisha alias Manisha v isha vs. Amarveer Yadav. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-191-2025 (O & M) 6

15. In view of the overall facts facts and circumstances of the present cas nt case, this Court is of the considered sidered opinion that no sufficient ground has nd has been made out for transfer of fer of the petition from Amritsar to Hoshiarp oshiarpur.

16. Consequently, finding no me no merit in the present transfer petition, the ion, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any if any, shall also stand disposed

17. of. , 2026 May 14, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document