Husband's Offer to Pay Travel Costs Cannot Defeat Wife's Transfer Plea, Punjab & Haryana HC Holds
Allowing a wife's petition to shift divorce proceedings from Hisar to Sonepat, Justice Harkesh Manuja held that an offer to bear travel expenses is not an inflexible answer to a transfer application.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has transferred a divorce petition filed by a husband at the Family Court, Hisar to the Family Court, Sonepat, accepting his wife's plea that her financial dependence, her residence with a widowed mother, and her responsibility for the couple's minor child constituted sufficient grounds for transfer. Justice Harkesh Manuja, sitting singly at Chandigarh, rejected the husband's argument that his willingness to cover the wife's travel costs was an adequate answer to the transfer application. The court made clear that such an offer cannot be treated as a blanket rule that defeats a wife's prayer in every case, and that the question must turn on the specific facts before it.
The Transfer Dispute
The marriage between Sonam Rani and Naresh Kumar was solemnised on 13 November 2013. A son, Ayush, was born on 9 February 2015. Matrimonial discord led the husband to file a divorce petition — DMC/919/2025, styled Naresh Kumar v. Smt. Sonam Rani — under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar.
Sonam Rani filed the present transfer application, TA-853-2026, seeking to move those proceedings to the Family Court at Sonepat. Her counsel, Mr. Ashwani Gaur (appearing through Mr. Arun Singal), submitted that she was residing with her widowed mother at Sonepat, had no independent source of income, and was solely responsible for the daily care of the minor child. Requiring her to attend hearings at Hisar, it was argued, would impose undue hardship.
Counsel for the husband, Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, opposed the transfer and offered to bear the wife's travel expenses for every hearing at which her presence was required before the Family Court, Hisar. He cited two precedents in support: the Supreme Court's judgment in Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma, reported as 2005(11) SCC 535, and this Court's judgment in Smt. Akvinder Kaur v. Sh. Gurpreet Singh, reported as 2020(2) RCR (Civil) 392.
The Pending Section 125 Proceedings
A separate proceeding was also relevant. The wife had filed a petition bearing MNT/180/2023 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Sonepat. That court disposed of the petition, and orders passed by both sides in that matter were pending adjudication before the High Court. Justice Manuja took note of this: Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings arising from the same matrimonial dispute were already anchored at Sonepat. Transferring the divorce petition to Sonepat would allow all related cases to be listed together.
Precedents Relied Upon and Distinguished
Justice Manuja placed reliance on two Supreme Court decisions. In Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396, and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, the Supreme Court had observed that “the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants.” The court had further directed that transfers should ordinarily be allowed keeping in view the convenience of female litigants, and that courts should desist from placing them under undue hardship.
The husband's reliance on Preeti Sharma was addressed carefully. In that case, the Supreme Court had found no substantial ground for transfer and instead directed the husband to bear the wife's travel and stay expenses. Justice Manuja held that Preeti Sharma could not be read as laying down an inflexible rule that an offer to pay travel costs would, in every case, defeat a wife's prayer for transfer. The question had to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The judgment in Smt. Akvinder Kaur was also distinguished on facts. Unlike that case, the present one involved a wife without any independent source of income, living with a widowed mother, caring for a minor child, and with connected proceedings already pending before courts at Sonepat. The factual foundation in Smt. Akvinder Kaur was therefore not comparable.
A further decision was considered: Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, reported as (2006) 9 SCC 197. In that matter, the Supreme Court declined transfer partly because grandparents were available to look after the child and the husband had offered to bear travel and stay expenses. Justice Manuja noted that those facts were absent here — the wife herself was residing with her widowed mother and was solely responsible for the minor child's care, without any independent income. The factual foundation that had weighed with the Supreme Court in Anindita Das simply did not exist in this case.
The Court's Reasoning
Justice Manuja's reasoning rested on the cumulative weight of the wife's circumstances rather than any single factor. Three elements together distinguished this matter from cases where an offer to pay travel costs had been found sufficient: the absence of any independent income, the responsibility of caring for a minor child alone, and the fact that related Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were already before courts at Sonepat.
The court was explicit that the offer to bear travel expenses is not a rule of universal application. Where the wife's inconvenience goes beyond the cost of travel — where she has no income, no support structure, and a dependent child to manage — directing payment of travel costs does not adequately address the hardship of attending proceedings in a distant city. The transfer, in such circumstances, is the appropriate course.
The court also pointed to the practical benefit of having all proceedings between these parties listed at the same court. With Section 125 Cr.P.C. matters already linked to Sonepat, consolidation served both convenience and efficiency.
Order
Justice Harkesh Manuja allowed TA-853-2026. The divorce petition DMC-919-2025, Naresh Kumar v. Smt. Sonam Rani, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, stands transferred from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar to the Family Court at Sonepat. The Family Court, Hisar was directed to transmit the requisite record to the court concerned.
Both parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Sonepat on 18 September 2026. The court concerned was directed to ensure that all cases between the parties are listed on the same date. Any pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.