Mukesh v. Alka Alka

Mr. Vikas Bairagi, Advocate fo cate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of filing the present pe sent petition, the petitioner-wife is seeking tran g transfer of petition filed by respon espondent-husband under Section 13 of the H the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for s (for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. DMC/165/20 165/2025 titled as ‘Mukesh vs. Alka Alka’ pending before the learned Family Cour y Court, Rohtak to a Court of competen mpetent jurisdiction at Sonepat.

2. Learned counsel for the petition etitioner, inter alia, submits that :- i) The parties were married arried on 04.12.2019 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremon eremonies. ii) One son was born out rn out of the said wedlock on

18.01.2022 who is curren currently in the care and custody of respondent-husband. iii) Due to matrimonial dis ial discord the parties are now residing separately. iv) The petitioner has no ind independent source of income. She is presently residing esiding with her parents. On the other hand respondent is ent is working with a private firm. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1671-20 2025 -2- v) There is one case fil se filed by the petitioner for maintenance bearing No. ng No. MNT/169/2025 is pending adjudication before the e the Courts at Rohtak in which respondent is not putting utting in appearance. vi) The distance between een place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Ro Rohtak and the place of proceedings filed by respondent-husband, pending at Sonepat is a is about 52 kilometers on one side. As such, it is very d very difficult for the petitioner to undertake frequent travel travel for the case from Rohtak to Sonepat.

3. It is accordingly, prayed that that the present petition may be allowed and d and the bearing No. DMC/165/2025 5/2025 titled as ‘Mukesh vs. Alka’ be transferre nsferred from the learned Family C ily Court, Sonepat to a Court of competent ju tent jurisdiction at Rohtak.

4. Mr. Kisnshvk Nanda, Legal Legal Aid Counsel has put in appearance rance on behalf of espondent-husband and submits respond Vakalatnama atnama in Court which is taken on rec on record. Learned counsel for the respondent v dent vehemently opposes the submi submissions advanced by learned counsel for el for the petitioner and submits tha its that the respondent is already taking care o care of the minor child. The respond spondent is working with a private firm. Theref Therefore, as the respondent has many many additional responsibilities of earning and g and providing for his family and e and ensuring proper upbringing of his minor c inor child, it is accordingly prayed rayed that the present petition be dismissed. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1671-20 2025 -3-

5. No other argument has been m I een made on behalf of the parties. I have heard l eard learned counsel for the parties a rties and carefully gone through the case file. I ile. I find merit in the submissions issions advanced on behalf of the dent. respondent.

6. From the facts noted above, above, it is clear that unlike the respondent, dent, the petitioner has no onerous re ous responsibility and is living with her parents rents who take care of her. No cogent cogent reason has been given by the petitioner as ner as to why she is unable to trave travel to Sonepat to attend to the proceedings dings along with her father. On the nt is n the other hand, the respondent is single-hande handedly, taking care of the minor ch k of nor child born out of the wedlock of the parties. N rties. Not only does the respondent ha ent have to provide for the material needs of mi minor son, but is also responsible onsible for his mental and physical welfare. In t e. In this situation, no equitable groun r the ground is made out to transfer the case from m Sonepat to Rohtak. Mere penden endency of other case at Rohtak is not sufficien fficient reason to transfer.

7. This Court is well aware of t e of the preponderance of law in cases of tran of transfer emanating from matrimoni imonial disputes is in favour of the wife. Howev However, in certain similar cases as es as the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Co me Court, as well as this Court have r have refused relief to the wife. One such case wh ase which may be referred to is: (2006 (2006) 9 SCC 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. SrijitD SrijitDas’ wherein Hon’ble Supr Supreme Court under similar circumstance stances dismissed the wife’s appl application seeking transfer of petition filed n filed by the husband.Reference in t ce in this regard may also be made to two cases cases of this Court where, in similar imilar circumstances this Court had dismissed tra sed transfer applications filed on beha half of the wife. These are: TA RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1671-20 2025 -4- no. 126 of 2 6 of 2018 Smt. Akhwinder Kaur V aur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; and TA No. 299 o. 299 of 2019 Nisha alias Manisha v isha vs. Amarveer Yadav.

8. Accordingly, in view of the fa the facts and circumstances of the present case t case as noted above, as also the prec ove, he precedents of Case law as above, finding no m g no merit in this petition, the same is h me is hereby dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026

14.05.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.