Nidhi Goel Vs Vinay Mittal — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Nidhi Goel Vs Vinay Mittal — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Transfer not granted; the transfer application was dismissed. The applicant was pointed to the option of applying before the trial court for appearance through video conference.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant's application to transfer the civil suit for mandatory injunction (filed by respondents No.1 and 2, her parents-in-law) from Bathinda to Rohtak should be allowed, considering the factors governing transfer in matrimonial disputes, the applicant's working status and her compliance with the Court's direction to file an affidavit.

Court's answer

While adjudicating a transfer application relating to a matrimonial dispute, various factors are to be taken into consideration, such as educational qualification of the spouses, their source of earning, child born from the wedlock and custody, capacity to raise the children, convenience of witnesses and distance between the two places; there cannot be any straight jacket formula and each case has to be decided on its own factual background.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant at first instance did not state herself to be working; her employment (as Manager in an IT company at Gurugram, commuting from Rohtak) came forth only during the pendency of the application, and despite the Court's order dated 24.09.2025 requiring an affidavit of her working status, job and salary, no affidavit was filed. This conduct of the applicant was weighed against her.

Key takeaways

Since the litigation sought to be transferred is of civil nature, in which the applicant is not required to make appearance on each and every date of hearing, and considering her conduct and non-compliance, the Court did not deem it appropriate to accept the transfer application and dismissed it.ratio¶36
Considering the applicant's convenience on account of distance, if there is any constraint in making appearance before the court where the civil suit is pending, she has the option to file an application before the concerned court for making appearance through video conference, which that court may consider in the fitness of the circumstances.obiter¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Archana Puri, J.), 22.01.2026, in TA-1145-2024: Dismissed the transfer application of Nidhi Goel (applicant-wife) seeking transfer from Bathinda to Rohtak of a civil suit for mandatory injunction filed by her parents-in-law (respondents No.1 and 2; respondent No.3 being her husband), the marriage having taken place on 08.12.2022 and Bathinda being about 254 kms away. Held: no straight jacket formula governs transfer applications in matrimonial disputes; factors such as spouses' education, source of earning, custody of child, capacity to raise children, convenience of witnesses and distance are relevant, each case turning on its own facts. The applicant initially did not disclose that she was working; on query she was stated to be working as Manager in an IT company at Gurugram while making up and down from Rohtak, and she did not comply with the Court's order dated 24.09.2025 requiring an affidavit of her working status, job and salary. As the suit sought to be transferred was of civil nature not requiring her appearance on each and every date of hearing, transfer was declined. She retains the option to move the trial court for appearance through video conference. Background: respondents No.1 and 2 have a pending petition at Bathinda under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015 and Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act in which the applicant stands proceeded against ex parte; an FIR on her complaint (Annexure P-3) is pending investigation.