‘Single parenting is arduous task’: Punjab and Haryana High Court moved husband’s divorce plea 90km away to Faridabad

Justice Archana Puri heard a woman’s transfer plea on May 1.

Wife’s convenience: Court 

The court stated that generally in such matrimonial cases, the judiciary leans towards the convenience of wives, though it was not an absolute rule. 

Other relevant circumstances based on the material placed on record must also be considered, the court mentioned.

The court emphasised that the most important factor to be considered in the matrimonial dispute was that the applicant was taking care of her child, while she herself had no source of income.

Appearing for cases

• Three other litigations from their marriage were pending in the courts at  Faridabad, where the respondent was appearing, particularly the criminal case requiring his regular presence.
• The respondent did not bother to pursue the petition under Section 125 (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) of CrPC, which was decided in favour of the applicant, and had not paid any maintenance.
• Considering the aforesaid factors and the 90 km distance between the courts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the transfer plea.
• The divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband was transferred from the family court at Ferozepur Jhirka to the competent court at Faridabad, with directions to send the case record accordingly.

Wife’s submissions

Advocate Sanyam Khetarpal, on behalf of the applicant, submitted that on account of a matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separately. 

It was submitted that the applicant did not have any source of earnings, and she, together with her minor son, was dependent upon her parental family.

The counsel submitted that his client had lodged an FIR under Sections 323 (charges for causing hurt), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 498A (cruelty to a married woman), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Women Police Station, NIT, Faridabad.

It was further submitted that in the afore-mentioned FIR, the chargesheet had been filed, and the respondent was currently facing trial in Faridabad.

Khetarpal stated that besides the same, the petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was also filed against the respondent, which was pending in the courts at Faridabad, and the respondent was making an appearance for that. 

It was argued by the counsel that his client had filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC, which was filed in Faridabad and was decided in her favour, but the respondent had not paid any maintenance, forcing her to file an execution petition, which is still pending in Faridabad. The distance between the two places is about 90 km. 

Estranged marriage 

• The marriage between the parties had taken place on October 18, 2022, and a son was born from the estranged marriage on September 3, 2023. 
• The child was in the custody of the woman, and she had no source of income.
• The mother and the child were both dependent upon her parental family. 
• She had filed an FIR against her husband under the relevant sections of the IPC, registered at the Women Police Station, NIT, Faridabad.
• Besides the same, she also filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
• An order was passed in her favour in a petition filed under Section 125 of the CrPC, but her husband did not pay any maintenance.