Dismissed¶29

Krishna Beniwal v. Jagpal Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Aug 2025TA/508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TA-508-2025, P&H HC Chandigarh, 25.08.2025, Archana Puri J: wife's transfer application for Section 9 HMA petition (HMA/44/2024, Jagpal Singh Vs. Krishana Beniwal) from Family Court Panipat to Assandh, District Karnal dismissed; convenience of wife not a thumb rule; children in wife's custody can be cared for by her maternal grandparents; wife employed as teacher at Uplani, Assandh; respondent without income; distance only 42 km, well-connected transport; balance of convenience against transfer.

What did the court decide?

While courts generally lean towards the convenience of the wife in transfer applications relating to matrimonial disputes, this is not a thumb rule; other circumstances emerging from the record must be considered and the convenience/inconvenience of the parties balanced. ¶24

Krishna Beniwal Vs Jagpal Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer application filed by the applicant-wife for transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA/44/2024) pending in the Family Court, Panipat, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Assandh, District Karnal, should be accepted.

¶16

Court's answer

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Although the two children born of the wedlock are in the applicant's custody (a weighing factor), they can be taken care of by the parents of the applicant, with whom the applicant as well as the children are residing; hence the custody factor does not compel transfer.

¶27

Key takeaways

The distance between the place where the Section 9 petition is pending (Panipat) and the place where transfer is sought (Assandh) is only 42 kilometres, with well-connected means of transportation, weighing against transfer.ratio¶27
Balancing the convenience/inconvenience of the parties in light of the fact situation (children cared for by the applicant's parents, applicant employed as a teacher at Uplani, Assandh, Karnal, respondent having no source of income, distance of 42 km), no case is made out for acceptance of the transfer application.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Application dismissed — High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Archana Puri, J., oral, 25.08.2025). Applicant-wife sought transfer of the respondent-husband's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA/44/2024, 'Jagpal Singh Vs. Krishana Beniwal') from the Family Court, Panipat to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Assandh, District Karnal. Held: the courts' general lean towards the convenience of the wife in matrimonial transfer applications is not a thumb rule; convenience must be balanced on the facts of each case. On the facts, the two children in the applicant's custody could be cared for by her parents, with whom she and the children reside; the applicant works as a teacher at Uplani, Assandh, Karnal; it was stated that the respondent has no source of income; and the distance between Panipat and Assandh is only 42 kilometres with well-connected transportation. Balance of convenience did not favour transfer; application dismissed.

¶1

¶2

TA-508-2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.242

¶5

TA-508-2025 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025

KRISHNA BENIWAL

....Applicant

Versus

JAGPAL SINGH

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. HMA/44/2024, titled ‘Jagpal Singh Vs. Krishana Beniwal’, filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court, Panipat, and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Assandh, District Karnal.

¶17

In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondent made appearance through counsel. However, the counsel submits that he does not intend to file reply to the transfer application, though, he contests the same. Counsel for the parties heard.

¶18

At the very outset, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 15.02.2014. Two children were born from the said wedlock, one son and

¶19

Sonu 2025.08.26 15:31 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶20

¶21

TA-508-2025

¶22

one daughter and they both are in the care and custody of the applicant. However, on account of the matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separate. Also, it is asserted that the respondent has no source of income and is an alcoholic and he used to insult the applicant, off and on. Furthermore, it is submitted that the applicant, together with the children, is residing in the parental house. Also further, it is submitted that the applicant herself is working as a ‘Teacher’ in Uplani, Assandh, Karnal, under the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Yojana Scheme. As such, it is submitted that it is difficult for her to pursue the litigation, pending in the Courts at Panipat. Also, it is submitted that the distance between the two places is about 50 kilometres.

¶23

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is not having any source of earning and therefore, even if, the application is so accepted, it shall become difficult for him, to pursue the litigation, from a distance of about 80 kilometres.

¶24

In view of the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that even though, the Courts generally lean towards convenience of the wife, while considering the transfer application relating to the matrimonial dispute, but however, it is not a thumb rule. Various other circumstances, coming forth from the material brought on record, ought to be taken into consideration and then balancing of convenience/inconvenience of the parties, ought to be made. In the case in hand, there are two children born from the wedlock of the parties, who are in the custody of the applicant. This, though may be a weighing factor, but however, other circumstances also have to be taken into consideration. The applicant is working as a Sonu government teacher in Uplani, Assandh, Karnal and she had herself stated 2025.08.26 15:31 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶25

¶26

TA-508-2025

¶27

about the respondent not having any source of income. Considering the same, so far as the minor children are concerned, they can be taken care of by the parents of the applicant, with whom, the applicant, as well as the children are residing. The distance between the two places, where the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending and where it is sought to be transferred, is only 42 kilometres and this route has a wellconnected means of transporation.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid fact situation and balancing the convenience/inconvenience of the parties, no case is made out for acceptance of the application.

¶29

Hence, the transfer application is hereby dismissed.

¶30

(ARCHANA PURI) 25.08.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

Sonu 2025.08.26 15:31 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

Krishna Beniwal v. Jagpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Beniwal v. Jagpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Vs Ashish @ Aashi

Himshikha Vs Sucheta Kalia & Others

Rajni Vs Vikash

Chaudhary Devinder Singh @ Devinder Kumar Vs Balbir Kaur and Ors.

Dr Taruna Yadav Vs Vikram Yadav

Rachhpal Singh Vs Ant Kumari