The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that judicial convenience, particularly the welfare of a dependent wife and child amid multiple pending proceedings, can justify the transfer of a matrimonial petition even when the distance between forums is moderate. The decision underscores a pragmatic approach to matrimonial litigation, prioritizing the practical realities faced by women in estranged marriages over rigid territorial jurisdiction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant-wife, Amandeep Kaur, sought transfer of a petition filed by her husband, Palwinder Singh, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (DMC/33/2025), which was pending before the Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib. She requested that the petition be transferred to the Family Court (Camp Court) at Rajpura, District Patiala, where she resides and where three other related legal proceedings are already underway.
Key Facts
The marriage between the parties took place on 19.02.2010
A son, now approximately 13 years old, is in the sole care and custody of the applicant-wife
The applicant has no independent source of income and is financially dependent on her parental family
The parties have been living separately since the onset of matrimonial discord
The applicant has filed three other legal proceedings in Rajpura:
Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance
Petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
FIR No. 43 dated 08.06.2018, registered at P.S. Sadar, Rajpura, under Sections 323, 341, 498-A and 506 IPC
The respondent-husband is actively pursuing all three cases in Rajpura
The distance between Fatehgarh Sahib and Rajpura is approximately 35 - 40 kilometers
The respondent has consistently failed to appear in court on multiple dates, including the hearing on 25.02.2026 and the subsequent hearing on 27.04.2026
Procedural History
19.02.2010: Marriage solemnized
08.06.2018: FIR No. 43 lodged at P.S. Sadar, Rajpura
2025: Petition under Section 13 HMA filed by respondent-husband in Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib (DMC/33/2025)
2025: Applicant filed Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition in Rajpura
2025: Applicant filed petition under Domestic Violence Act in Rajpura
25.02.2026: First hearing in transfer application; respondent absent
27.04.2026: Final hearing; respondent again absent; application heard ex parte
The Parties' Positions
The applicant contended that transferring the petition to Rajpura would ensure coherence in litigation, reduce hardship on the wife and child, and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. She emphasized her economic vulnerability and the fact that the respondent himself is litigating other matters in Rajpura.
The respondent did not appear or file any written opposition to the transfer application.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought transfer of the petition under Section 13 HMA from the Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, to the Family Court (Camp Court), Rajpura, District Patiala, and directed the parties to appear before the transferee court within one month.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a matrimonial petition may be transferred to a forum where the wife resides, the child is in her custody, and multiple related civil and criminal proceedings are already pending, even when the distance between the two courts is not excessive.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Counsel for the applicant argued that the principle of judicial convenience, particularly in matrimonial matters, favors the wife’s location when she is economically dependent and caring for minor children. He cited the pendency of three other proceedings in Rajpura, including a criminal trial under Section 498-A IPC, which the respondent is actively contesting. He emphasized that requiring the wife to travel 40 kilometers for a petition initiated by the husband creates undue hardship and fragmentation of litigation.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any submissions. The court proceeded ex parte.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that while proximity alone is not determinative in transfer applications, it must be weighed against the totality of circumstances. The Court noted that the applicant is not merely a passive litigant but a woman with no income, raising a 13-year-old child alone, while simultaneously defending herself in three other cases in Rajpura.
"The applicant in the present case, is not having any source of earning and despite the same, she is taking care of the growing child, who is in her care and custody. Three other litigations, arising from the estranged marriage are already pending in the Courts at Rajpura, which are being pursued by the respondent, more particularly, the criminal case, wherein, the respondent is required to make appearance on each and every date of hearing."
The Court observed that the respondent, despite being the petitioner in the HMA case, is himself engaged in active litigation in Rajpura. This creates a clear nexus between the forum and the parties’ lived reality. The Court further emphasized that the respondent’s repeated non-appearance demonstrated a lack of interest in contesting the transfer, which weighed in favor of granting the application.
The Court rejected a formalistic approach to jurisdiction, holding that the convenience of the wife, the welfare of the child, and the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings are legitimate and compelling grounds for transfer under the inherent powers of the High Court.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court allowed the transfer application and directed that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (DMC/33/2025) be transferred from the Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, to the Family Court (Camp Court), Rajpura, District Patiala. The record was ordered to be sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, for assignment to the appropriate court. The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court (Camp Court), Rajpura, within one month from the date of judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Convenience of the Wife Is a Decisive Factor
Practitioners must now argue transfer applications by demonstrating the wife’s economic dependence, primary custody of children, and the existence of parallel proceedings in the proposed forum
Distance alone is insufficient to deny transfer; the cumulative burden on the wife must be quantified
Absence of opposition from the respondent strengthens the case for transfer
Multiplicity of Proceedings Must Be Avoided
When a spouse is already litigating multiple matters (civil, criminal, maintenance) in one forum, transferring the matrimonial petition to the same forum promotes judicial efficiency
Courts are likely to view fragmented litigation as prejudicial to the wife’s right to effective access to justice
Counsel should compile a complete list of pending cases and their dates to support transfer applications
Non-Appearance by Respondent Is Not Neutral
Repeated non-appearance in transfer proceedings may be interpreted as acquiescence or abandonment of contest
Courts may treat such conduct as a factor favoring the applicant, especially in gender-sensitive matters
Practitioners should formally record instances of non-appearance in affidavits and submissions
