Partly allowed¶34

Deepika Arora v. Girish Arora

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2025TA/152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer application matrimonial dispute; divorce petition transferred to mid-point between Faridabad and Ambala; wife's convenience not a thumb rule; balance of convenience of both spouses; distance about 239 kilometres; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cases DV/154/2021 pending at Ambala; two children of crucial age with applicant; applicant no source of earning; respondent petty job, ailing mother; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Archana Puri; 05.03.2025; partly allowed; reply CM-3785-CII-2025 taken on record.

What did the court decide?

Divorce petition directed to be transferred to a mid-point court between Faridabad and Ambala (specific transferee court not legible in source); application CM-3785-CII-2025 for taking the reply on record allowed. ¶34

Deepika Arora Vs Girish Arora — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the divorce petition pending at a distance of about 239 kilometres should be transferred, weighing the applicant-wife's circumstances (children of crucial age living with her, no source of earning) against the respondent's (petty job, ailing mother), given that preference to the wife's convenience in matrimonial transfer applications is not a thumb rule.

¶29

Court's answer

Preference to the convenience of the wife in transfer applications relating to matrimonial disputes is the position of law, but it is not a thumb rule; various other circumstances spelt out from the material must also be considered, with circumstantial flexibility and a balance maintained as to the convenience/inconvenience of either side.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Since the ~239 km distance between the two places would cause inconvenience to either side whether or not the case is transferred, and considering that both children live with the applicant who are in the crucial age-group and that the applicant has no source of earning, the Court suggested transferring the divorce petition to some mid-point between Faridabad and Ambala; both counsel accepted the offer.

¶33

Key takeaways

In the fitness of the convenience of both the sides, the transfer application is partly allowed, the divorce petition being directed to the agreed mid-point venue between Faridabad and Ambala (the fragment naming the transferee court is illegible in the source text).ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

TA-152-2024 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Archana Puri, J., oral), decided 05.03.2025. Transfer application in a matrimonial dispute: the applicant-wife sought transfer of a divorce petition pending about 239 kilometres away, while two cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV/154/2021) were pending at Ambala and were being pursued by the respondent-husband. The applicant had two children of crucial age living with her and no source of earning; the respondent did a petty job and lived with his ailing mother. Held: although the position of law prefers the convenience of the wife in matrimonial transfer applications, it is not a thumb rule; other circumstances must be weighed and a balance maintained between the convenience of both sides. As the ~239 km distance would inconvenience either side, the Court suggested — and both counsel accepted — transfer of the divorce petition to a mid-point between Faridabad and Ambala; the transfer application was accordingly partly allowed. CM-3785-CII-2025 (placing the reply on record) was allowed. Party names, the divorce petition's case number and forum, and the precise transferee court were illegible in the source text.

¶1

��

¶2

�

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.112

¶5

TA-152-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.03.2025

��

....Applicant

Versus

��

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Mr. D.K. Prajapati, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

CM-3785-CII-2025

¶17

The present application has been filed by the respondent, for placing on record the reply to the transfer application.

¶18

In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and the requisite reply is taken on record.

¶19

Main case

¶20

�� !" �� �� ��#$ �� #��"��%�&��$�'��"�%��#�� &��'��&��(��&#��

)��"��&��

��$��

*��

Sonu 2025.03.05 17:36 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶25

��

¶26

�

¶27

��+��$��"��#&�� &��#��" �� !�� #��&��"�� ,��$��$��$�� "��#&��+��$�� $��&��$��-+��"�� .�'��/�'��0�� 1�� Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act i.e. DV/154/2021, which are pending in the Courts at Ambala and the respondent is pursuing both the said cases. In the given circumstances, considering the crucial age of the children and the applicant having no source of earning, it is submitted that it is difficult for her to commute a distance of about 239 kilometres, to defend the divorce petition.

¶28

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent while making reference to the reply filed, submits that the respondent is doing a petty job. Even, his ailing mother is living with him and as such, it will be difficult for him also, to commute a distance of 239 kilometres, if the transfer application is allowed.

¶29

In view of the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that even though, the position of law is that preference ought to be given to the convenience of the wife, in case of transfer applications relating to the matrimonial dispute, but however, it is not a thumb rule. Various other circumstances, spelt out from the material coming, also ought to be taken into consideration. Circumstantial flexibility ought to be there and the balance has to be maintained with regard to the convenience/inconvenience of the either side.

¶30

Sonu 2025.03.05 17:36 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶31

��

¶32

�

¶33

In the case in hand, the distance between the two place is about 239 kilometres, which definitely would be causing inconvenience to either side, if the case is transferred or not. Taking into consideration the same, considering the fact about both the children to be living with the applicant, who are in the crucial age-group and also considering the fact of the applicant not having any source of earning, it was suggested by the Court to both the counsel, about the transfer of the divorce petition, at some midpoint between Faridabad and Ambala. The offer so made, is acceptable to both the counsel.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid fact situation and in the fitness of the convenience of both the sides, the transfer application is partly allowed and �� !" �� �� ��#$��#��" ��& ��%�&��$ �'��" �%��#��" ��'�� &��(��/��2�� #��#$��%�&��$�'��"�%��#��"��3��4��" /��

¶35

*��3��4��"�/��"�� %�&��$�'��"�/��-+��"�� #��%�&��$�'��"�/��"��&��& ��$��

¶36

05.03.2025 Himanshu			(ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes
	Whether reportable	:	Yes/No

¶37

Himanshu

¶38

Sonu 2025.03.05 17:36 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

Deepika Arora v. Girish Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepika Arora v. Girish Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kimmy Vs Deepak Kumar

Manita Vs Rajesh Kumar

Harjinder Kaur Vs Lovepreet Singh

Gurminder Sing Sohal Vs Daminder Kaur

Karamjeet Kaur Vs Amanpreet Singh Oberoi

Swaran Kaur Vs Kuldeep Singh