(O & M) v. Akashdeep shdeep Singh

Judgment

1. The present Transfer Applica pplication has been filed by the applicant- -wife seeking transfer of Divo Divorce Petition bearing No. DMC/1492 /1492/2025 titled as “Akashdeep Sing p Singh vs. Paramjit Kaur”, filed by the resp e respondent-husband under Section ection 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, presen presently pending before the learne learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bat t, Bathinda, Punjab, to a Court of urt of competent jurisdiction at Kharar, Pun ar, Punjab.

2. Learned counsel for the ap the applicant submits that the marriage b

iage between the parties was solemniz lemnized on 25.02.2012 and one female chil le child was born out of the said wedl d wedlock on 30.11.2012, who is presently re ntly residing in the care and custody stody of the respondent-husband. Owing to g to matrimonial discord, the pa he parties have been residing separately s rately since 23/24.09.2025. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-662-2026 (O & M) 2

3. It has been argued that the a the applicant was compelled to leave the the matrimonial home on accoun ccount of physical assault and harassment sment allegedly caused by the re the respondent. In this regard, reliance ha nce has been placed upon the Medico edico Legal Report (Annexure P- 1), which r hich reflects that the applicant had su had sustained four minor injuries. Learned co ned counsel further submits that the a t the applicant apprehends threat from the re the respondent and, therefore, is unab is unable to travel from Kharar to Bathinda to inda to attend the proceedings pending ending before the Family Court.

4. On a specific query put by th by this Court as to whether any FIR or com or complaint had been lodged by th by the applicant regarding the alleged thre ed threats, learned counsel submitted itted that the applicant has only filed a co a complaint before the competent petent Court at Kharar seeking directions f ions for registration of an FIR against gainst the respondent.

5. It has further been subm submitted the following proceeding eedings between the parties are already lready pending at Kharar:- (i) Petition under Section ection 125 Cr.P.C.; (ii) Complaint case agains against the respondent-husband and his family member embers; and (iii) Petition under Section Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic mestic Violence Act.

6. Learned counsel for the applic applicant has also contended that the applica pplicant is unemployed and is, therefo therefore, not financially capable of travellin avelling to Bathinda on each date o date of hearing. However, on a Court quer t query regarding the educational qua al qualifications of the applicant, it was subm s submitted that the applicant is an is an M.A. graduate in Punjabi. Learned co ned counsel was unable to furnish any ish any specific reason as to why VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-662-2026 (O & M) 3 the applica applicant, despite being well-qualifie ualified, is not engaged in any employmen oyment.

7. Learned counsel has further s rther submitted that the applicant is still wi ill willing to resume matrimonial onial life with the respondent. However, o ever, on being queried by the Court a ourt as to whether the applicant had institut instituted any proceedings under Sectio Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking seeking restitution of conjugal rights, ights, it was fairly conceded that no such pet ch petition has been filed.

8. I have heard learned counsel unsel for the applicant and have considered idered the material available on record record.

9. It is true that while considerin sidering transfer petitions arising out of matr f matrimonial disputes, the convenien venience of the wife is ordinarily given due w due weightage. However, such princ principle cannot be applied in a mechanical anical manner and each case has to be s to be examined on its own facts and circum ircumstances.

10. In the present case, admitted mittedly, the minor daughter is residing wi ing with the respondent-husband, who d, who is not only maintaining his employmen oyment but is also single-handedly tak dly taking care of the upbringing, education a ation and day-to-day welfare of the ch the child. Thus, the respondent is simultaneo ltaneously discharging parental as well as professional responsibil nsibilities.

11. In contrast, no exceptional o onal or compelling circumstance has been b een brought on record by the applic applicant to establish that she is incapable o able of travelling the distance betwee between Kharar and Bathinda for attending t ding the proceedings. The distance tance involved is approximately VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-662-2026 (O & M) 4 230-240 ki 240 kilometers and the travel time, as me, as noticed during the course of hearing, aring, is around three to four hours. M ours. Moreover, such travel is not required on ired on a daily basis, but only on t y on the dates fixed before the Family Cou ily Court.

12. Even the Medico Legal Rep l Report (Annexure P-1), relied upon by t by the applicant, reflects only mi ly minor bruises and does not substantiate tantiate any such grave or extraordinar rdinary circumstance which may justify tran fy transfer of the proceedings. Sim s. Similarly, except for a bald assertion re ion regarding threat perception, no F , no FIR or substantive material has been pl een placed on record to support such a such apprehension.

13. 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. However, in certain similar cas lar 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 re 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.

14. Having regard to the overall verall facts and circumstances of the presen present case, this Court does not f not find any sufficient ground VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-662-2026 (O & M) 5 warranting anting exercise of discretionary juris y jurisdiction for transfer of the proceeding eedings from Bathinda to Kharar.

15. Consequently, finding no meri o merit in the present petition, the same is dis dismissed. Pending application(s), if any if any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2026 May 15, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document