✦ High Court of India · 19 May 2026

Transfer Application No vs E NIDHI GUPTA

Case Details High Court of India · 19 May 2026
Court
High Court of India
Case No.
Ta No. 1438 of 2025
Decided
19 May 2026
Length
1,161 words

Cited in this judgment

Judgment

1. The present transfer ap fer application has been filed by the applica pplicant-wife seeking transfer of the of the petition instituted by the respondent ndent-husband under Sections 13(1 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Ma u Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, short, “the Act”), bearing No. DMC/523/ /523/2025 titled as “Sachin vs. Nidhi idhi” (Annexure P-1), pending before the re the Court of the Principal Judge, F dge, Family Court, Rohtak, to a Court of co t of competent jurisdiction at Gurugram rugram.

2. Learned counsel for the ap the applicant has submitted as under:- i) That the marriage b e between the parties was solemnized on 27.11.2

27.11.2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremon eremonies. ii) That no child was born born out of the said wedlock. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 18.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1438-2025 (O & M) 2 iii) That the applicant- -wife has been residing separately from the the respondent-husband since January 2025. iv) That the applicant is nt is unemployed and has no independent source o rce of income. It is further submitted that the fath e father and younger brother of the applicant had exp d expired much prior to her marriage and, therefore, refore, she was brought up by her maternal uncle at Guru Gurugram, there being no other family member to look o look after her. It is contended that on account of her of her financial condition, she is unable to undertake tra ke travel covering a distance of approximately 80 kilom kilometers from Gurugram to Rohtak. v) That no other litigatio igation between the parties is pending, except the petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) o 1)(iii) of the Act, which forms the subject matter of the pre the present transfer application.

3. On the aforesaid grounds, the s, the applicant seeks transfer of the petition etition, as detailed in paragraph 1 abov 1 above.

4. Per contra, learned counsel a nsel appearing on behalf of the respondent ndent has opposed the prayer made made in the present application and submit ubmitted that the applicant has concea concealed material facts from this Court. It i t. It is contended that the applicant plicant is, in fact, a resident of Rohtak and ak and not Gurugram, as is evident vident from the Marriage Card (Annexure exure R-1) appended with the reply fi eply filed by the respondent. It is further sub er submitted that the applicant is pr t is presently residing at Rohtak along with h her mother. Learned counsel for the respo respondent further submits that the materna aternal uncle of the applicant is servi s serving in the Haryana Police at VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 18.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1438-2025 (O & M) 3 Gurugram gram and, therefore, the present tran nt transfer application has been filed only w only with a view to exert pressure upo ure upon the respondent-husband. It is conten contended that the applicant never res ver resided at Gurugram and has failed to p d to produce any documentary proof proof in support of her alleged residence th ence there. It is also submitted that the m

the marriage between the parties was solemn solemnized at Rohtak and, therefore, refore, the cause of action arose within the in the territorial jurisdiction of the Co he Courts at Rohtak. Even in the Marriage C iage Card (Annexure R-1), the ad he address of the applicant is reflected as cted as Rohtak.

5. I have heard learned counsel ounsel for the parties and have perused the sed the record of the case with due care ue care.

6. Learned counsel for the app e applicant has been unable to dispute tha te that the applicant has failed to plac to place on record any material to substantiate tantiate her plea that she has been resi en residing at Gurugram with her maternal un rnal uncle throughout her life.

7. Learned counsel for the ap he applicant is also unable to controvert rovert the submissions advanced on be on behalf of the respondent that the matern aternal uncle of the applicant is se t is serving as an officer in the Haryana Po ana Police at Gurugram and that the m t the marriage between the parties was solemn solemnized at Rohtak, where the cause cause of action also arose.

8. No cogent or convincing reas g reason has been shown by the applicant t cant to establish that she is unable unable to travel the distance of approximat oximately 80 kilometers between Gur en Gurugram and Rohtak for the purposes o oses of attending the proceedings b ings before the learned Family Court. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 18.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1438-2025 (O & M) 4

9. 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 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 sim r similar circumstances dismissed the ed the wife’s application seeking transfer of fer of petition filed by the husband.Re 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. 126 126 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.

10. Accordingly, in view of the f the facts and circumstances of the present resent case as noted above, as also the lso the precedents of Case law as above, find e, finding no merit in this petition, the the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s) if any s f any stand disposed of. , 2026 May 19, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHIGUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 18.58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments