Vinita Vs Pushpinder Singh — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Vinita Vs Pushpinder Singh — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Transfer application TA-705-2024 allowed on the basis of the wife's convenience (divorce petition pending at Khanna); CM-19488-CII-2024 allowed with the reply and Annexures R-1 and R-2 taken on record. The specific transferee-court direction lies in a portion of the operative paragraph that is illegible in the supplied text and is therefore not asserted here.

Issue for consideration

Whether the divorce petition pending at Khanna, instituted by the respondent-husband, should be transferred in favour of the applicant-wife, who resides at Jalandhar, has no source of earning, and would have to commute about 120 kilometres to defend it. +1 more

Court's answer

In transfer applications relating to matrimonial disputes, preference is to be given to the convenience of the wife.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the position of law favouring the wife's convenience, the distance of about 120 kilometres between Jalandhar and Khanna, and that the applicant has no source of earning, the transfer application is allowed.

Key takeaways

The respondent's application to place his reply along with Annexures R-1 and R-2 on record is allowed and the requisite documents are taken on record.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Archana Puri, J., oral), deciding CM-19488-CII-2024 in/and TA-705-2024 on 04.02.2025, allowed the wife-applicant Vinita's transfer application concerning the divorce petition instituted by respondent Pushpinder Singh, pending at Khanna at the stage of evidence (issues framed). Facts recorded: marriage on 29.11.2009 with no child; matrimonial discord; the applicant had filed a Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition at Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, where an ex parte order dated 31.03.2017 was passed and remains wholly unpaid; she has since shifted to Jalandhar (her Aadhaar annexed by the respondent's counsel) and has no source of earning. Applying the position of law that preference is to be given to the convenience of the wife in transfer applications in matrimonial matters, and noting the approximately 120-kilometre distance between Jalandhar and Khanna, the Court allowed the transfer application. The respondent's submission that the application served merely his opponent-counsel's convenience was placed on record but did not prevent the allowance. The respondent's separate application (CM) to place his reply with Annexures R-1 and R-2 on record was allowed. Marked speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportability column left open (Yes/No).

1

TA-705-2024 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.104

CM-19488-CII-2024 IN/AND TA-705-2024 Date of Decision: 04.02.2025

VINITA

....Applicant

Versus

PUSHPINDER SINGH

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present:Mr. Sushant Kohli, Advocate for the applicant. (through video conferencing).

Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Advocate for the respondent.

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

CM-19488-CII-2024

The present application has been filed by the respondent for placing on record the reply along with Annexures R-1 and R-2.

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

Though, the main case is not listed for today, but however, the same is taken up for hearing today itself.

Main case

�� ! �� �� ��"# �� "��!��$�%��#�&��'&�%��&��(�)��! *��+��%��&�� Sonu 2025.02.04 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P&HHC

2

TA-705-2024 (O&M)

��%��,��-��

.��!��%��

��#��

+��

��/��# ��! ��t is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 29.11.2009, but no child was born from the said wedlock. However, on account of the matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separate. Even, the applicant had filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the Courts at Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, while she was staying there and ex parte order was passed by the Court on 31.03.2017. However, no maintenance has been paid by the respondent, till date. Further also, it is submitted that thereafter, the applicant had shifted her residence to Jalandhar, which fact is also not disputed by the counsel for the respondent, as he has annexed a copy of her Aadhar Card along with the reply. The applicant is not having any source of earning and as such, it is difficult for her to commute a distance of about 120 kilometres, to defend the divorce petition.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the reply filed, submits that the application for transfer has been filed, only for the convenience of the counsel, who is making appearance on behalf of the applicant. Also, it is submitted that in the pending divorce petition, issues have been framed and the case is at the stage of evidence of the respondent (who is petitioner in the divorce petition).

)��n view the aforesaid fact situation, considering the position of law about preference to be given to the convenience of the wife Sonu in the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial dispute and also 2025.02.04 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P&HHC

3

TA-705-2024 (O&M)

considering the distance between Jalandhar and Khanna to be about 120 kilometres, more particularly, while the applicant is not having any source of earning, the transfer application is allowed and�� !�� ��  ��"#��"��!��%��$�%��# &��'&�%��&��(�)��!��+��!��&��%�� ,��-��0��"�� "#��$�%��#�&��'&�%��&��(�)��!�� -��!�-��

+��*��-��!�-��!�� $�%��#�&��!�-��1/��!�� "��$�%��#�&��!�-��!��%�� %��#��

04.02.2025 Himanshu

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

Sonu 2025.02.04 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P&HHC