Rajni v. Yashpal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.111 TA-1213-2024 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 

....Applicant

Versus

 .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the applicant.

None for the respondent.

***** ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral) As per the observations made in the order dated 08.01.2025, despite service, the respondent did not make appearance on that date. Even today, he has not made appearance. As such, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

The counsel for the applicant heard.

 

 

    

             

  !" # $  
   

%&  

% $     '(&  ) (  * $              (          ( 

 +   

, 

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 25.04.2018. One son born from the said wedlock, is in the care and custody of the respondent, at

 present. It is submitted that at the time of turning out the applicant from the matrimonial home, after subjecting her to beatings, the child was snatched by the respondent and his parents. On account of this matrimonial dispute, the applicant has already filed the complaint under Section 406, 498-A and 34 IPC, which is pending in the Courts at Jalandhar. Also, it is submitted that the applicant has no source of income and is totally dependent upon her parental family. As such, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant to commute a distance of about 350 kilometres to defend the divorce petition.

In view of the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that though, generally the Courts lean towards the convenience of the wife, in case of the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial disputes, but however, it is not a thumb rule. Various other circumstances spelt out, are also required to be taken into consideration. The Court is supposed to do some balancing between convenience/inconvenience of both the sides and also take into consideration, as to whether it is just and expedient to accept the transfer application. In the case in hand, the minor son born from the wedlock of the parties, is in the custody of the respondent, though, it is asserted that the child was snatched from the applicant.

Even, the distance between the two places is about 350 kilometres and such a distance is bound to cause inconvenience to either party, whether the applicant or the respondent, in pursuing the litigation.

 convenience/inconvenience between the parties concerned.
   

           $   transfer application is partly allowed and                !" # $   
   

 %&   

% $    ( '(&  ) (  *  $   $     ( 

+   -

.    %

%& '(&  ) (

 * $       ,$-

/      ,$-$

     '(&  $- 01 $     % '(&  $-$     (

( &



(ARCHANA PURI) 09.04.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No