Transfer Application No.1053 of 202 v. Harmandee

Judgment

1. Prayer in the present petition file on filed by the applicant-wife is for transfer of t er of the petition filed by the respondent ndent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, (for ‘the Act’) bearing No.HMA/27 MA/273/2025 titled as “Harmandeep deep Singh vs. Jaspreet Kaur @ Prabhjot Ka jot Kaur” (Annexure P-1), pending befo g before the Court of learned Addl. Principal Ju ipal Judge, Family Court, Chandigarh digarh, to a Court of competent jurisdiction iction at Barnala.

2. The applicant in this Transfer Ap fer Application has submitted that:- i) The marriage between th

een the parties was solemnized on

03.05.2022 according to ing to Sikh rites and ceremonies. ii) No child was born out of out of the wedlock. iii) Owing to matrimonial d nial discord, the applicant-wife has been residing separately rately from the respondent-husband since 16.04.2024 and is and is presently residing with her parents in Village Moom Moom, District Barnala. iv) The applicant-wife is unemployed, has no independent source o rce of income and is entirely VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 18.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Transfer Application No.1053 of 202 2025 (O & M) 2 dependent upon her par er parents for her sustenance. It is further submitted that th that the respondent-husband is not paying any amount towa t towards her maintenance. v) Proceedings arising out g out of a petition under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Na iya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 bearing No.MNT/91/202 91/2025 filed by the applicant-wife are pending before the co the competent Court at Barnala. vi) The distance between etween Village Moom, District Barnala, where the a the applicant-wife claims to be residing, and Chandigar ndigarh, where the petition under Section 13 of the Act Act is pending, is approximately 160 kilometers one sid ne side and it is difficult for the applicant-wife to underta undertake such travel on account of financial constraints. vii) It is also contended t ded that there is no adult male member in the family family who can accompany the applicant-wife to Chand Chandigarh on each and every date of hearing.

3. On the aforesaid grounds, prayer prayer has been made for transfer of the petition, tition, as detailed hereinabove.

4. Per contra, learned counsel a nsel appearing on behalf of the respondent ndent-husband has vehemently opp opposed the present transfer application. ation. It is submitted that the applicant licant-wife has concealed material facts from t from this Court. Attention of the Court Court has been drawn to the bank account stat nt statement of the applicant-wife (Ann (Annexure R-3), which, according to the respo respondent, reflects that the applicant- -wife is working as a freelancer in a Visa C isa Consultancy firm and as per her ba her bank statement (Annexure R-3) she is residi residing at “SCF-13, Top Floor, Phase- -5, SAS Nagar (Mohali)”.

5. It is, thus, contended that the app he applicant-wife is in fact residing and workin orking at Mohali and not at Barnala, ala, as projected in the present Transfer Ap fer Application. It has further been argue n argued that no documentary proof VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 18.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Transfer Application No.1053 of 202 2025 (O & M) 3 has been pl een placed on record by the applicant- -wife to establish her residence at Village M lage Moom, District Barnala.

6. Learned counsel for the responde pondent has also submitted that the complaint in laint initiated by the applicant-wife was fe was lodged only after service of summons u ons upon her in the petition filed by th by the respondent-husband under Section 13 n 13 of the Act. It is, therefore, pray e, prayed that the present transfer application n deserves dismissal.

7. It is pertinent to notice that today today, neither learned counsel for the applica pplicant-wife has appeared nor any r any rejoinder has been filed controvertin overting the specific assertions raised by sed by the respondent in the written statement/re ent/reply, despite opportunity having having been sought for the said purpose on se on the previous date of hearing i.e. 30 i.e. 30.04.2026.

8. I have heard learned counsel for sel for the respondent-husband and have carefu carefully perused the paper-book as wel as well as the documents placed on record.

9. A perusal of the material produ produced by the respondent prima facie indica indicates that the applicant-wife has no has not approached this Court with complete ca lete candour. The record relied upon by pon by the respondent reflects that the applica pplicant-wife has been associated wit d with a consultancy concern at Mohali and li and has disclosed the Mohali addres address in her banking documents. Despite spe ite specific pleadings having been raise n raised by the respondent in this regard, the d, the same have remained unrebutted, utted, as neither any rejoinder has been filed n filed nor any explanation has been furnis furnished by the applicant-wife.

10. It is well settled that a litigant itigant seeking discretionary relief from the Co the Court must approach the Court with rt with clean hands and disclose all material fac ial facts truthfully. Suppression or co or concealment of material facts disentitles a titles a party from seeking equitable relie e relief. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 18.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Transfer Application No.1053 of 202 2025 (O & M) 4

11. In this situation, reference may b may be made to judgment of this Court in Sw Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, ngasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Finder Doc ID # 2126995, wherein it is n it is held that:- “Transfer application seeking tr g transfer of matrimonial case dismissed due to concealmen lment of material facts and misstatements made by the petitio etitioner-wife. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sectio ection 13 Transfer application - Petitioner-wife seeking transfer o fer of matrimonial case filed by respondent-husband - Earlier tra r transfer application dismissed on merits due to concealment ent of material facts - Review application also dismissed as w s withdrawn - Present transfer application dismissed as petition titioner found to be habitual in making misstatements and mislea isleading the Court.”

12. Same view has been taken by en by this Court in Sheveta @ Sheveta Se ta Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punjab And b And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2 D # 2726495; Swati Pathania v. Rite . Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : ana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 20273 2027329; and Richa Nagpal v. Tarun Nag n Nagpal, (Punjab And Haryana) : ana) : Law Finder Doc ID #

13. This Court is also well aware th are that the preponderance of law in cases of es of transfer emanating from matrimon trimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. Ho ife. However, in certain cases similar to t to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court, as well as this Court have ref ve refused relief to the wife. One such case is case is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ‘Anindita D dita Das Vs. Srijit Das’ wherein Hon’ble Sup ble Supreme Court under similar circums ircumstances dismissed the wife’s application on seeking transfer of petition filed filed by the husband. Reference may also also be made to two cases of this f this Court where, in similar circumstanc stances this Court had dismissed tra ed transfer applications filed on behalf of th f of the wife. These are: TA No. 126 . 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 18.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Transfer Application No.1053 of 202 2025 (O & M) 5 Kaur Vs. S Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh’; and TA No A No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manisha vs sha vs. Amarveer Yadav’.

14. In the present case, the conduct o duct of the applicant-wife, coupled with the un the unrebutted material placed on record record by the respondent-husband, persuades th ades this Court not to exercise discretio cretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applican plicant-wife.

15. Consequently, finding no mer o merit in the present transfer application, cation, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applicati plications, if any, shall also stand

16. ssed. dismissed. , 2026 May 19, 202 Asija Vijay Asija ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether spe Whether Rep er speaking/reasoned Yes / No er Reportable Yes / No VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 18.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document