‘He has anxiety’: Why Punjab and Haryana High Court favoured husband, not wife, in this matrimonial feud
The Punjab and Haryana High Court was hearing the wife's plea seeking transfer of the husband's petition for annulling marriage from Patiala to Jalandhar.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that the wife failed to bring any “extenuating” circumstances to show that she was not in a position to travel. (AI-generated image) Punjab and Haryana High Court news: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently declined a wife’s plea to transfer a matrimonial case filed by her husband for annulment of the marriage, pointing out that she had “no responsibilities” that prevented her from travelling, but the husband was suffering from depression, anxiety and could not travel alone without his parents’ assistance.
Justice Nidhi Gupta noted that the marriage between the estranged couple had allegedly lasted only 16–17 days. The court further noted that the wife claimed to be unemployed and dependent on her parents, while alleging that the husband, a director in the Punjabi film and music industry earning around Rs 1.5–2 lakh per month, was not paying her any maintenance.
“Unlike the respondent, the applicant-wife has no responsibilities as it is the respondent (husband) who is suffering from depression, etc., regarding which his medical record is placed on record as Annexure R-1, in which it is specifically pointed out that the respondent cannot travel alone without the help of his parents,” the May 14 order read.
Justice Nidhi Gupta noted that the settled legal position in transfer petitions arising out of matrimonial disputes generally favours the wife.
The high court was hearing the wife’s plea seeking transfer of the husband’s petition filed under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (annulment of marriage) from Patiala to Jalandhar.
‘Hardly a two-hour journey’
- The high court pointed out that the wife failed to bring any “extenuating” circumstances to show that she was not in a position to travel the relatively short distance of about 155 kilometres.
- The high court further emphasised that the distance is hardly a two-hour journey between Jalandhar and Patiala, and that too, not daily but only on the date of hearing.
- The high court noted that the settled legal position in transfer petitions arising out of matrimonial disputes generally favours the wife.
- However, it added that, in certain similar cases, the Supreme Court as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court, have refused relief to the wife.
16-17 days of marriage, depression
It was placed on record that the couple got married in March 2024 according to Sikh rites and rituals, and there were no children born out of the said wedlock.
It was further added that the estranged wife is living separately from the husband after 16 days of marriage and living with her parents at their mercy.
The wife claimed that she is unemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent upon her parents and the husband, who is working as a director in the Punjabi Film/Music Industry and earning about Rs 1.5-2 lakh per month, is not paying anything to her towards maintenance.
The husband subsequently filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent court at Patiala. Section 12 petition generally seeks a decree of nullity of marriage on specified legal grounds.
The wife then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking transfer of the husband’s case from Patiala to Jalandhar.
The wife claimed that the distance between the place of her residence and the place of proceedings filed by the husband, pending before the family court, at Patiala, is about 155 kilometres one way.
The wife claimed that there is no proficient male member in her family who can accompany her to visit and attend the court proceedings at Patiala because the parents are elderly persons with age-related ailments.
I am continuing the treatment
Appearing for the husband, advocate Nitish Garg argued that the allegations levelled by the wife against the husband are baseless and concocted.
Regarding the transfer of the petition filed by the husband, Garg submitted that this marriage survived only for around 16-17 days, and no child was born out of the said wedlock.
He added that since the parties have been living separately since March 2024, there is no responsibility upon the wife of any kind.
He referred to the records and submitted that the husband is suffering from depression, sadness, fear, anxiety, social phobia, lack of confidence, etc. and cannot travel alone and always needs the support of her parents for the same.
He further submitted that the husband is continuing under treatment.
Garg also mentioned that, on the contrary, the wife does not have any responsibility of any kind, enjoys the company of her parents and has filed the present petition for transfer of the petition filed by the husband just to harass him physically and mentally.
He further contended that it is not more than two hours journey to reach the court of Patiala and that too not daily, just on the date fixed in the case.
He lastly submitted that the wife has not shown any physical or mental inability that would establish that she is unable to travel such a short distance on the dates of the hearing.
The wife was represented by advocate Sandeep Sharma in the matter.
Share
