Dismissed¶31

Megha v. Ankit Kaushik

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2025TA/746/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; TA-746-2025 (O&M); transfer application; matrimonial dispute; Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act petition DMC-548-2024; Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; Family Court Bhiwani; Family Court (Camp Court) Kanina, Mohindergarh; convenience of wife not a thumb rule; custody of minor children as weighing factor; 70 kms commuting; Annexure A-4; respondent ex parte despite service; Archana Puri, J.; decided September 03, 2025; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Courts generally give preference to the convenience of the wife while considering transfer applications relating to matrimonial disputes, but this is not a thumb rule; various other circumstances emerging from the material on record must also be considered. ¶23

Megha Vs Ankit Kaushik — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. DMC-548-2024) filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court, Bhiwani, should be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court (Camp Court), Kanina, District Mohindergarh, on the ground of the applicant-wife's convenience.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

¶23

Key takeaways

Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances; the earlier accepted transfer application concerning the applicant's sister (Annexure A-4), in which kidney disease was a weighing factor, does not govern the present case.ratio¶25
That both children, who are of tender age (about 3 and 2 years old), are in the care and custody of the respondent-husband is in itself a weighing factor which ought to be taken into consideration against transfer.ratio¶29
There being no other precipitating circumstance in favour of the applicant, and no evidence on record of lack of proper road connectivity, no such inconvenience would be caused to the applicant in defending the litigation at Bhiwani.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer application dismissed (Punjab & Haryana HC, TA-746-2025 (O&M), Archana Puri, J., September 03, 2025). The applicant-wife sought transfer of her husband's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (No. DMC-548-2024, 'Ankit Kaushik vs. Megha') from the Family Court, Bhiwani to the Family Court (Camp Court), Kanina, District Mohindergarh, pleading that she has no source of earning, must commute 70 kms., and has a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act pending at Kanina. Held: preference to the wife's convenience is general practice but not a thumb rule; the couple's two children of tender age (girl about 3 years, boy about 2 years) are in the care and custody of the respondent-husband, which is itself a weighing factor; each case must be decided on its own facts, and the sister's accepted transfer application (Annexure A-4) turned on her kidney disease; with no other precipitating circumstance and no evidence of poor road connectivity, no inconvenience would be caused to the applicant. Transfer application dismissed; the respondent did not appear despite service.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

122

¶3

TA-746-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 03, 2025

Megha

....Applicant

Versus

Ankit Kaushik

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶10

Present:Mr.Ranvijay Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

None for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

ARCHANA PURI, J.

¶14

The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing No.DMC-548-2024, titled ‘Ankit Kaushik vs. Megha’, filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court, Bhiwani and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, (Camp Court) Kanina, District Mohindergarh.

¶15

In pursuance of the notice, the respondent did not make appearance, despite service.

¶16

Counsel for the applicant heard.

¶17

It is submitted that the marriage between the parties had taken

¶18

place on 25.02.2020 and two children born from the said wedlock, i.e.

¶19

VINEET GULATI 2025.09.03 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

TA-746-2025

¶21

-2-

¶22

daughter aged about 3 years and son aged about 2 years, are in the care and custody of the respondent. The applicant has no source of earning. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant to commute a distance of 70 kms. to defend the litigation. Moreover, it is submittd that petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is also pending in the Courts at Kanina, District Mohindergarh.

¶23

In view of the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to the mention that generally, the Courts give preference to the convenience of the wife, while considering the transfer application, relating to the matrimonial dispute, but the same is not thumb rule. Various other circumstances, spelt out, from the material brought on record, ought to be taken into consideration. No doubt, as observed that the respondent has not come forward to resist the transfer application, but however from the perusal of the transfer application, it is evident that two children were born from the said wedlock. The girl child is about 3 years old and the boy child is about 2 years old. Both the said children, who are of tender age, are in the care and custody of the respondent.

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that other sister of the applicant was also married to the brother of the respondent and she is also having matrimonial dispute and relating to the same, the transfer application was accepted, copy whereof is Annexure A-4.

¶25

However, may it be so. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Therein, the sister of the applicant was suffering from

¶26

VINEET GULATI 2025.09.03 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

-3-

¶28

TA-746-2025

¶29

kidney disease, which in itself, was a weighing factor to be considered. But anyhow, in the case in hand, the applicant is hale and hearty and more particularly, the children, who are of tender age, as such, are in the care and custody of the respondent. This in itself is a weighing factor, which ought to be taken into consideration.

¶30

Considering the same and no other precipitating circumstance, in the favour of the applicant, no such, inconvenience shall be caused to the applicant, more particularly, when there is no evidence, coming on record, about there to be no proper road connectivity.

¶31

Hence, the present transfer application is hereby dismissed.

¶32

September 03, 2025 (ARCHANA PURI) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶33

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

¶34

VINEET GULATI 2025.09.03 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Megha v. Ankit Kaushik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Megha v. Ankit Kaushik

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

Muneet Kaur Vs Amandeep Singh Bedi

Khushbhu Kumari Vs Sagar Kumar

Poonam Rani Vs Praveen Kumar

Kuldeep Singh through Special Power of Attorney Vs General Public and Another

Amnindra Kaur @ Amninder Kaur Vs Baldev Singh Hundal

Sumitra and Ors. Vs Prit Paul Singh and Ors.