Manju Vs Rajni Kant

The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled ‘Rajni Kant Vs. Manju and another’ (Annexure P-1) , filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court (Camp Court) Loharu, District Bhiwani and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hansi.

¶17

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

¶18

Counsel for the parties heard.

¶19

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 14.04.2004. However, on Sonu account of the matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separate. Two 2025.08.21 09:28 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶20

2

¶21

TA-69-2024

¶22

children were born from the said wedlock; son born on 25.05.2005 and daughter born on 09.07.2006. Son is presently in the care and custody of the applicant, whereas the daughter is in the care and custody of the respondent. Also, it is submitted that the applicant is not having any source of earning and as such, is fully dependent upon her parental family. There is no other litigation, pending between the parties. In these circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant, to commute a distance of about 50 kilometres, to defend the divorce petition.

¶23

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the reply filed, submits that in fact, the brother of the applicant, together with his friends, had attacked the respondent, relating to which an FIR bearing No.72 dated 26.05.2021, under Sections 323, 34, 452 and 506 IPC, was got registered and the brother of the applicant, is facing trial relating to the same, in the Courts at Loharu, District Bhiwani. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that considering the distance between the two stations, to be not more than 40 kilometres, no case is made out for transfer of the divorce petition.

¶24

In view of the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that generally, the Courts lean towards the convenience of wife, in case of transfer application relating to the matrimonial dispute. However, it is not a thumb rule. Various other circumstances, spelt out from the material brought on record, also ought to be taken into consideration and then balancing of the convenience/inconvenience of both the sides, has to be made. In the case in hand, two children were born from the said wedlock, son is about 20 years old and the daughter is about 19 years old. There is no

¶25

Sonu 2025.08.21 09:28 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶26

3

¶27

TA-69-2024

¶28

other litigation between the parties. The distance between the two places is about 50 kilometres. Even, the applicant is having a grown up boy, living with her.

¶29

On query by this Court, the counsel for the applicant was unable to state about the son to be following any avocation or to be a student.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid fact situation, more particularly, considering the fact of the respondent taking care of the grown up daughter, no case is made out for transfer of the divorce petition.

¶31

Hence, the transfer application is hereby dismissed.

¶32

(ARCHANA PURI) 20.08.2025 JUDGE Himanshu

¶33

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

¶34

Sonu 2025.08.21 09:28 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

Manju v. Rajni Kant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju v. Rajni Kant

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

Monisha Alias Mohnisha Vs Vishal

Jagdeep Kaur Vs Rajinder Singh

Ravinder Kumar Kohli Vs Promod Kumar Kohli and Others

Jaswinder Singh Vs Gurpreet Singh

Jaswinder Singh Vs Gurpreet Singh

Mehak Sharma Vs Naresh Kumar Thaman