Husband's Offer to Pay Travel Costs Does Not Automatically Defeat Wife's Transfer Plea: P&H High Court

The parties married on 13.11.2013 and have a son born in 2015; the husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Hisar (paras 1-2). The wife, living with her widowed mother and the child at Sonepat, sought transfer there (paras 1, 3). Her maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC had been decided at Sonepat and was under challenge in the High Court (para 6). The husband offered to bear her travelling expenses, relying on Preeti Sharma and Akvinder Kaur (para 4).

The Court relied on Sumita Singh and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi, which require courts to give more weightage to the convenience of female litigants in transfer applications (para 8). Preeti Sharma did not lay down an inflexible rule that an offer to pay travelling expenses defeats a wife's prayer for transfer in every case; each case turns on its own facts (para 9). Akvinder Kaur was distinguishable, since the wife here had no independent income, lived with her widowed mother at Sonepat, cared for the minor child, and the Section 125 proceedings arising from the dispute were pending (para 10). In Anindita Das the transfer was refused because grandparents could look after the child and expenses were offered; that factual foundation was absent here (para 11). Her inconvenience could not be met merely by directing payment of travelling expenses (para 10).