The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a wife’s transfer plea in an annulment case, observing she had no responsibilities preventing travel, while noting that her estranged husband suffered severe depression and anxiety disorders making independent travel difficult for him during proceedings.
In a departure from usual judicial practice, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a wife’s plea seeking transfer of her annulment case. The court observed that the wife had “no responsibilities” that would stop her from travelling, while the husband her estranged spouse was battling severe depression and anxiety that prevent him from travelling alone.
Justice Nidhi Gupta heard the matter and refused to move the matrimonial proceedings from Patiala to Jalandhar. The judge noted that the distance between the two cities is only 155 kilometers, describing it as “hardly a two-hour journey.” She further explained that the wife would need to travel only on scheduled court hearing dates, not daily.
The dispute arises from a short-lived marriage. The couple married in March 2024 following Sikh rites and rituals. However, the relationship lasted merely 16 to 17 days, and they separated without any children.
ALSO READ: Matrimonial Dispute| “Misunderstanding on the Concept of Mediation”: Supreme Court
After the separation, the husband approached the Patiala court by filing a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of nullity (annulment) for the marriage. In reply, the wife sought transfer of the case to Jalandhar, where she currently lives, citing the hardship of travelling the 155-kilometer distance.
The wife argued that travel to Patiala would be difficult because her parents are elderly and unwell. She claimed that there was “no proficient male member” in her family who could accompany her to court hearings. She also said she was unemployed, had no independent source of income, was dependent on her parents, and had not received any maintenance from her husband.
Her counsel, Sandeep Sharma, highlighted that the husband is a director in the Punjabi film and music industry and earns an estimated Rs 1.5 to 2 lakh per month.
For the husband, advocate Nitish Garg denied the wife’s claims, calling them false and devised to cause harassment. He emphasized that the couple had been living separately since March 2024, shortly after the marriage, and that the wife therefore had no domestic or familial obligations.
He also relied on medical records (marked as Annexure R-1) to support that the husband is undergoing treatment for serious mental health issues. The documents state that the husband suffers from depression, sadness, fear, anxiety, social phobia, and a lack of confidence. The records further state that he is unable to travel alone and requires the constant support of his parents to make trips.
Justice Nidhi Gupta acknowledged that transfer petitions in matrimonial matters often see courts favor the wife. However, she stressed that the principle is not absolute. The High Court referred to earlier decisions, noting that in similar situations the Supreme Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court have declined transfer relief to wives as well.
Since the husband’s inability to travel alone was supported by medical evidence, and the wife was not shown to have any comparable extenuating physical or mental constraints, the High Court concluded there was no basis to shift the case.
As reflected in the court’s May 14 order, the judge held:
“Unlike the respondent, the applicant-wife has no responsibilities as it is the respondent (husband) who is suffering from depression.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE