Court emphasizes the importance of considering the economic dependence and childcare responsibilities of female litigants in matrimonial transfer petitions under Hindu Marriage Act
In a significant judgment dated September 1, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Harkesh Manuja, allowed the transfer petition filed by Sonam Rani, the wife, seeking the transfer of a divorce petition initiated by her husband, Naresh Kumar. The case, originally filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was pending in the Family Court, Hisar. The Court directed that the case be transferred to the Family Court at Sonepat, taking into account the wife's convenience and her care responsibilities towards their minor son.
The matrimonial dispute arose from a marriage solemnized on November 13, 2013, between Sonam Rani and Naresh Kumar, with one male child born to them in 2015. The husband had filed a divorce petition in Hisar, while the wife sought transfer of the proceedings to Sonepat, where she resides with her widow mother and their minor child.
The Court thoroughly examined the facts and noted that the wife had no independent source of income and was solely dependent on her mother and younger brother. She was also responsible for the day-to-day care of her minor son. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that in matrimonial transfer matters, the convenience of the female litigant must be given due weightage, especially when she bears childcare responsibilities and lacks financial independence.
The husband opposed the transfer application, arguing that he was willing to bear the wife's travel expenses for the hearings in Hisar. However, the Court distinguished this case from precedents cited by the husband, clarifying that an offer to pay travel expenses does not automatically defeat a wife's request for transfer. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including "Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay (2002)", "Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005)", and "Anindita Das vs Srijit Das (2006)", which emphasize that courts should avoid putting female litigants under undue hardships and prioritize their convenience.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the wife had earlier filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which was disposed of by the Family Court at Sonepat, with appeals pending before the High Court. This further strengthened the case for transfer to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and reduce the wife's hardship.
Consequently, the Court allowed the transfer petition and directed the Family Court, Hisar, to send the record to the Family Court, Sonepat. Both parties were instructed to appear before the Sonepat Court on September 18, 2026, with all related cases listed for the same date. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's sensitivity towards the plight of women in matrimonial disputes, ensuring that legal processes do not impose additional hardships on economically dependent female litigants with childcare responsibilities.
Bottom Line:
Matrimonial transfer petitions - Courts should give due weightage to the convenience of female litigants in matrimonial transfer matters and avoid putting them under undue hardships.
Statutory provision(s):
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 125
Sonam Rani v. Naresh Kumar, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975262
