Dismissed¶32

Jaswinder Kaur v. Amrik Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2025TA/585/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

P&H HC TA-585-2023, decided 07.08.2025 by Archana Puri, J.: wife's application to transfer husband's Section 13 HMA divorce petition (HMA/165-2022) from Family Court (Camp Court), Khanna to Fatehgarh Sahib dismissed; wife-convenience preference held not a thumb rule; distance only 40 kms with good road connectivity; two children (girl 9, boy 8) in father's care and custody; applicant took no custody steps; Section 12 DV Act petition pending at Fatehgarh Sahib.

What did the court decide?

While courts give preference to the convenience of the wife in transfer applications relating to matrimonial disputes, this is not a thumb rule; various other circumstances coming forth ought to be taken into consideration. ¶25

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Amrik Singh — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer application filed by the applicant-wife for transfer of the divorce petition (HMA/165-2022) pending in the Family Court (Camp Court), Khanna to Fatehgarh Sahib ought to be accepted, having regard to the convenience of the wife and other relevant circumstances.

¶25

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The assertion by counsel for the applicant that the children were forcibly kept by the respondent was not substantiated, as on query it was stated that no steps had been taken to seek custody of the children.

¶26

Key takeaways

Considering the circumstances, the distance of 40 kms between the two places, the good road connectivity, and the fact that both children reside with the father, no case is made out for acceptance of the transfer application.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Application TA-585-2023 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Archana Puri, J., decided 07.08.2025) dismissed. The applicant-wife sought transfer of the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA/165-2022, 'Amrik Singh v/s Jaswinder Kaur'), filed by the respondent-husband and pending in the Family Court (Camp Court), Khanna, District Ludhiana, to Fatehgarh Sahib. Held: the preference given to the convenience of the wife in matrimonial transfer applications is not a thumb rule; the distance between the two places is only 40 kms with good road connectivity; both minor children (daughter aged 9, son aged about 8) born of the marriage of 08.12.2012 are in the care and custody of the respondent-father, and the applicant, despite asserting the children were forcibly kept, had taken no steps to seek their custody; accordingly no case was made out for acceptance of the transfer application, which was dismissed. A petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act filed by the applicant remains pending at Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶1

¶2

TA-585-2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.107

¶5

TA-585-2023

¶6

Date of Decision: 07.08.2025

JASWINDER KAUR

....Applicant

Versus

AMRIK SINGH

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶13

Present:Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the applicant. (Through video conferencing).

¶14

Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

¶15

¶16

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶17

The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. HMA/165-2022 titled ‘Amrik Singh v/s Jaswinder Kaur’, filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court (Camp Court), Khanna, District Ludhiana and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶18

Upon notice, the respondent has made appearance through counsel and submits that he does not intend to file reply to the transfer application, though he contest the same.

¶19

Counsel for the parties heard.

¶20

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 08.12.2012 and two children born from the said wedlock, who are in the age Sonu 2025.08.08 16:18 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶21

¶22

TA-585-2023

¶23

group of 8-9 years, are in the care and custody of the respondent. It is submitted that even though the distance between the two places is 40 kms, but since, the applicant is very poor, it is difficult for her to commute such distance, to pursue the divorce petition. The applicant has also filed petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which is pending in the courts at Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶24

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is single parent, who is taking care of the two children, who are of the growing age, more particularly, the girl child. In the given circumstances, it shall also be difficult for the respondent also, if the divorce petition is transferred. Moreover, emphasis has also been laid upon the distance between the two places.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is pertinent to mention that even though the courts give preference to the 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, ought to be taken into consideration.

¶26

In the case in hand, the distance between the two places, where the divorce petition is pending and where it is sought to be transferred is 40 kms only, that too from the place of residence of the applicant. There are also two children born from the wedlock of the parties, one is daughter, who is 9 years old and the son is about 8 years old. Both the children are in the care and custody of the respondent. This is the weighing factor, about the respondent taking care of both the children. Although, it is asserted by the counsel for the applicant about the children having been forcibly kept by the respondent, but however, on query, it is stated that no such steps have been

¶27

Sonu 2025.08.08 16:18 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶28

¶29

TA-585-2023

¶30

taken to seek custody of the children.

¶31

Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the distance between the two places as well as considering the good road connectivity between the two places and the fact of two children residing with the father, no case is made out for acceptance of the transfer application.

¶32

Hence, the transfer application is hereby dismissed.

¶33

07.08.2025 Sonu

¶34

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

¶35

Sonu 2025.08.08 16:18 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

Jaswinder Kaur v. Amrik Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswinder Kaur v. Amrik 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

Parveen Kaur Vs Jaswinder Singh

Renu Bala Vs Nitish Kumar

Sonaley Vs Anil Kumar and Others

Parampal Singh and Ors. Vs Rajinder Singh and Anr.

Rupinder Kaur Vs Gurpreet Singh

Yogita Vs Arun Kumar