Jyoti v. Satyawan

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA CORAM: Present: - Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this petition filed by the petitioner-wife is for Prayer in this petition filed by the peti transfer of petition filed by the petitioner herself transfer of the petitioner herself under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No. of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) HMA/68/2026 (Annexure P-2) titled as ‘ HMA/68/2026 (Annexure P ‘Jyoti vs. Satyawan, pending before the learned Family Court, Kaithal before the learned Family Court, to the learned Family Court, Moonak, Sessions Division, Sangrur. Moonak, Sessions Division, Sa

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that :- Learned counsel for the petitioner Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was i) Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 01.03.2017

01.03.2017. ii) Three children i.e. 02 daughters and 1 son were Three children i.e. 02 daughters and 1 son were born out of the said wedlock, who , who are presently in the care and custody of the respondent-husband. and custody of the respondent iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are residing Due to matrimonial discord the parties are residing 15.10.2025. separately since 15.10.2025. iv) The petitioner has no source of income and is now The petitioner has no source of income and is now ive-in partner at Moonak and residing with her live dependent upon the income of her live-in partner. dependent upon the income of her live v) The distance between place of residence of the The distance between place of residence of the the place of petitioner-wife proceedings filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal kilometers on one side. It is very difficult is about 70 kilometers on one side. Moonak and i.e. Moon 2026 TA-698-2026 -2- for her to frequently travel from Moonak to Kaithal for her to frequently travel from attend the Court proceedings. to attend the Court proceedings.

3. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be allowed; and and petition bearing No. HMA/68/2026 (Annexure P bearing No. HMA/68/2026 (Annexure P-2) titled as ‘Jyoti vs. pending before the learned Family Court, Kaithal vs. Satyawan, pending before the learned Family Court, Kaithal be transferred to the learned Family Court, Moonak, Sessions Division, be transferred to the learned Family Court, Moonak, Sessions Division, be transferred to the learned Family Court, Moonak, Sessions Division, Sangrur.

4. Heard. No other argument No other argument. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner as, the petitioner has mentioned in para 7 of the petition that mentioned in para 7 of the petition that ‘due to above humiliation, harassment and differences in opinion and age difference between the harassment and differences in opinion and age difference between the harassment and differences in opinion and age difference between the petitioner and respondent, there remained difference in understanding petitioner and respondent, there remained petitioner and respondent, there remained re, in the meantime, petitioner fell in love between both of them. Therefore, in the meantime, petitioner fell in love between both of them. Therefo with one Naresh S/o Sh. Balwant and started residing with him in live- with one Naresh S/o Sh. Balwant and started residing with him in live with one Naresh S/o Sh. Balwant and started residing with him in live relationship....’. in-relationship....’.

5. On the other hand, respondent-husband is single-handedly, On the other hand, respondent born out of the wedlock of the parties. taking care of 03 minor children born out of the wedlock of the parties. taking care of 03 minor children Not only does the respondent have to provide for the material needs of Not only does the respondent have to provide for the material needs of Not only does the respondent have to provide for the material needs of the minor children, but is also responsible for the minor children , but is also responsible for their mental and physical welfare.

6. From the facts noted above, it is clear that unlike the From the facts noted above, it is clear that unlike the From the facts noted above, it is clear that unlike the respondent, the petitioner has no onerous responsibility respondent, the petitioner has no onerous at her responsibility and is living at her live-in partner house No cogent reason has been given by the in partner house at Moonak. No cogent reason has been given by the No cogent reason has been given by the petitioner as to why she is unable to travel short distance of 70 Kms. to petitioner as to why she is unable to travel petitioner as to why she is unable to travel Kaithal to attend to the proceedings and that too not daily but only on the to attend to the proceedings and that too not daily but only on the and that too not daily but only on the dates of hearing. Moreover, the petition dates of hearing bearing No. HMA/68/2026 Moreover, the petition bearing No. HMA/68/2026 2026 TA-698-2026 -3- 2) has been filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal, (Annexure P-2) has been filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal, 2) has been filed by the petitioner herself at Kaithal, (Annexure P therefore, no ground is made out to transfer the case from therefore, no ground is o transfer the case from Kaithal to Moonak.

7. This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in cases This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in cases This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. n’ble Supreme However, in certain similar cases as the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme However, in certain similar cases as the present one, the Ho However, in certain similar cases as the present one, the Ho Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case which may be referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 which may be referred to is: ‘Anindita Das Vs. (2006) 9 SCC 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances SrijitDas’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances seeking transfer of petition filed by the dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the seeking transfer of petition filed by the dismissed the wife’s application Reference in this regard may also be made to two cases of this husband. Reference in this regard may also be made to two cases of this Reference in this regard may also be made to two cases of this Reference in this regard may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer 8 applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: TA no. 126 of 2018 applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: TA No. 299 of Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; and TA No. 299 of Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; 2019 Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav. 2019 Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav. 2019 Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav.

8. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. merit in this petition, the same is hereby

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

21.05.2026 21.05.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No