Dismissed¶37

Veenal Gupta v. Ankit Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2025TA/610/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer application TA-610-2025 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 09.09.2025 by Mrs. Justice Archana Puri; wife's request to transfer husband's Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act divorce petition (HMA/183/2025) from Family Court Jind to Yamuna Nagar/Jagadhri refused; convenience of wife not a thumb rule; educated working wife with 9 years' experience, foreign travel for work, Gurugram-Jind-Yamuna Nagar equi-distances; virtual appearance as answer to inconvenience; dismissal with liberty to seek virtual-mode appearance.

What did the court decide?

No transfer granted; the Court directed that if the applicant subsequently files an application for permission to appear through virtual mode, the Court concerned shall consider it and pass an appropriate order. ¶37

Veenal Gupta Vs Ankit Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA/183/2025, 'Ankit Kumar Vs. Veenal Gupta') pending in the Family Court, Jind, should be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Yamuna Nagar (Jagadhri) at the instance of the applicant-wife. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

While the Courts generally lean towards the convenience of the wife in transfer applications relating to matrimonial disputes, that preference is not a thumb rule; various other circumstances emerging from the material on record ought to be taken into consideration.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is a well-educated, professionally qualified working woman with about nine years' experience who goes abroad for her office duties; having the capacity to move around, she is a confident woman who can very well take care of the litigation wherever it remains pending, so pursuing the case at Jind should pose her little difficulty.

¶32

Key takeaways

Jind is equi-distant from the applicant's workplace at Gurugram as well as her residence at Yamuna Nagar, so she can pursue the litigation while staying at either place.ratio¶35
Since the applicant has the option to seek leave to appear before the Court concerned through virtual mode as and when required, no inconvenience is evidently made out so far as the transfer application is concerned.ratio¶36
The transfer application is dismissed; however, if the applicant thereafter files an application seeking permission to appear through virtual mode, the Court concerned shall consider the same in the fitness of circumstances and pass an appropriate order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Mrs. Justice Archana Puri, Oral judgment, 09.09.2025) dismissed TA-610-2025 (O&M) in which the applicant-wife, Veenal Gupta, sought transfer from the Family Court, Jind to Yamuna Nagar (Jagadhri) of the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA/183/2025, 'Ankit Kumar Vs. Veenal Gupta') filed by the respondent-husband, Ankit Kumar. Holding that the general judicial leaning towards the wife's convenience in matrimonial transfer matters is not a thumb rule, the Court found the applicant — a qualified professional with about nine years' experience, travelling abroad for office duties — fully capable of conducting the litigation wherever pending; Jind being equi-distant from her workplace at Gurugram and her residence at Yamuna Nagar, and virtual-mode appearance being available, no inconvenience was evidenced. The transfer application was accordingly dismissed, with a direction that any future application by the applicant for permission to appear virtually be considered by the Court concerned.

¶1

¶2

TA-610-2025 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.109

¶5

TA-610-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2025

VEENAL GUPTA

....Applicant

Versus

ANKIT KUMAR

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

CM-16467-CII-2025

¶17

The present application has been filed at the behest of the respondent, for placing on record 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

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/183/2025, titled ‘Ankit Kumar Vs. Veenal Gupta’, filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court, Jind and she seeks Sonu transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Yamuna Nagar 2025.09.10 10:16 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶21

¶22

TA-610-2025 (O&M)

¶23

at Jagadhri.

¶24

Upon notice issued, the respondent made appearance through counsel and filed reply.

¶25

Counsel for the parties heard.

¶26

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 09.12.2020, but no child was born from the said wedlock. However, both the parties are working in Multi-National Companies. It is submitted that even though, at the time of filing of the application, it was asserted about the applicant to be working at Noida, but now, she is stated to be working at Gurugram. There is no other litigation between the parties. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that the applicant is conducting her work from home and she herself is residing at Yamuna Nagar, which is her parental place. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant to commute a distance of about 150 kilometres, to defend the divorce petition.

¶27

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the reply, submits that the applicant has concealed the material fact. In fact, she is a well-educated woman, who is employed in MultiNational Company, Admiral India, Sector 59 Gurugram and having an experience of about 9 years. During the course of her duty, she also travels abroad. More specifically, counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the applicant has travelled to ‘United Kingdom’, in the month of May, 2025. As per policy of the company of applicant, she is required to travel to Gurugram, twice a week, for her office work. Considering the same, it is Sonu submitted that if the applicant is in a position to pursue her job and proceed 2025.09.10 10:16 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶28

¶29

TA-610-2025 (O&M)

¶30

to Gurugram for 2 days in a week, there should not be any difficulty faced by the applicant, while pursuing the litigation, which is pending at Jind. In fact, it is submitted that the distance between Gurugram and Jind is about 150 kilometres and the similar extent of distance is between Jind and Yamuna Nagar. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that the transfer application be dismissed.

¶31

At this stage, counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has danger to her life, at the instance of the respondent, if the case remains pending at Jind.

¶32

In view of the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to note that generally, the Courts lean towards convenience of wife, while considering the transfer application relating to the matrimonial dispute. However, the same is not a thumb rule. Various other circumstances, spelt out from the material brought on record, ought to be taken into consideration. In the case in hand, the applicant is a well-educated and qualified lady. She is a working woman and her work experience is about 9 years, which fact has been admitted by counsel for the applicant. Also, as asserted in the reply, counsel for the applicant has admitted that the applicant goes abroad, off and on, with regard to her office duties. Such being the circumstances, when the applicant is professionally qualified and is working for the last 9 years, she is bound to be mobile, though may be on account of discharge of her official duties, but the fact remains that she has the capacity to move around and thus, is a confident woman, who can very well take care of the litigation, wherever it remains pending. If the applicant can go abroad, of her own, then there should not be much difficulty for her, to pursue the litigation, Sonu pending at Jind, even while staying at her place in Yamuna Nagar, or her 2025.09.10 10:16 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶33

¶34

TA-610-2025 (O&M)

¶35

workplace i.e. Gurugram, as Jind is equi-distant from Gurugram, as well as Yamuna Nagar.

¶36

Considering the aforesaid circumstances, more particularly, when the applicant has an option to file an application for making appearance before the Court concerned, as and when required, through virtual mode, no inconvenience is evidently made out, so far as transfer application is concerned, in pursuing the litigation aforesaid.

¶37

Hence, the transfer application is hereby dismissed.

¶38

However, if any application is filed by the applicant for seeking permission to appear through virtual mode, the Court concerned shall consider the same, in the fitness of circumstances and pass an appropriate order.

¶39

(ARCHANA PURI) 09.09.2025 JUDGE Himanshu

¶40

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶41

Sonu 2025.09.10 10:16 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

Veenal Gupta v. Ankit Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veenal Gupta v. Ankit Kumar

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

Manjeet Kaur Vs Amandeep Singh

Sapna @ Manju Vs Deepak

Komal Vs Surender Singh and Another

Nisha Alias Nisha Bhandari Vs Gujinder Sehgal

Savita Punia Vs Kshitij Dangi

Baljit Kaur Vs Amandeep Singh