Mere Convenience of Wife Not Absolute Rule in Transfer Pleas: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed two transfer applications filed by a woman seeking transfer of pending property related civil suits from Kurukshetra to Ambala, observing that although courts ordinarily lean in favour of the convenience of women in transfer matters, such consideration cannot be treated as an inflexible rule.

The Court held that all surrounding circumstances, including the nature of litigation, conduct of parties, and possible mala fides, must also be examined before exercising transfer jurisdiction.

Justice Archana Puri, while dismissing the applications noted that nearly seven other connected litigations involving the same parties were already pending in Pehowa and Kurukshetra, where the applicant herself was participating in proceedings.

The Court further observed that allegations of collusion raised by the respondent-grandfather-in-law could not be ruled out in the peculiar facts of the case. Consequently, the Court found no justifiable ground to transfer the suits to Ambala.

The transfer applications arose from two civil suits pending before courts at Pehowa in District Kurukshetra.

One suit had been instituted by Satbir Kaur herself against her in-laws, while the second had been filed by her husband, Gagandeep Singh, against her and others.

Through the present applications, she sought transfer of both matters to courts at Ambala on the ground that she was residing at her parental home along with her minor daughter and faced difficulty in attending proceedings at Pehowa.

Before the High Court, counsel for the applicant submitted that Satbir Kaur had married Gagandeep Singh in March, 2017 and a daughter was born out of the wedlock in 2018.

Matrimonial discord subsequently arose between the spouses, leading to their separation.

It was argued that prior to the dispute, the husband had transferred certain property in favour of the applicant, which later became the subject matter of litigation.

Owing to alleged threats of interference in possession by her in-laws, the applicant claimed she was constrained to initiate legal proceedings.

Since she was now residing in Ambala with her daughter, transfer of the pending suits was sought for her convenience.

The respondents, however, strongly opposed the plea.

The grandfather-in-law, Desh Raj, contended that he originally owned agricultural land measuring 144 kanals and had transferred portions thereof in favour of family members, including his grandson Gagandeep Singh, out of love and affection and with the expectation that they would care for him in his old age.

According to the respondents, after receiving the property, Gagandeep Singh failed to honour his commitment and subsequently transferred portions of the land to his mother and wife, including the present applicant.

It was further alleged that the subsequent transfers were made with mala fide intent to defeat Desh Raj’s right to seek resumption of the property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The respondents stated that proceedings had already been initiated under Section 23 of the 2007 Act challenging both the original transfer and subsequent conveyances.

Those proceedings had travelled through multiple forums, including the High Court, and connected litigation was continuing before authorities and courts at Kurukshetra.

Counsel appearing for Desh Raj also pointed to the existence of numerous other proceedings pending between the parties at Pehowa and Kurukshetra.

It was argued that despite participating in those litigations, the applicant had selectively sought transfer only of the two civil suits in question.

The respondents therefore contended that the plea lacked bona fides and was intended merely to inconvenience the elderly respondent.

While considering the matter, the High Court acknowledged the settled principle that courts generally lean towards the convenience of women while deciding transfer petitions, especially in matrimonial disputes.

However, Court clarified that the principle is not a “thumb rule” and cannot operate mechanically in every case.

The Court emphasised that surrounding facts and the conduct of parties must also be weighed carefully.

The Court took note of the fact that the applicant had been living separately from her husband since 2018, yet no divorce proceedings had been initiated. The only matrimonial proceeding instituted by her was a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance.

Even in that proceeding, the Court noted, no effective steps had been taken by the applicant to secure payment of maintenance or procure the husband’s presence.

Another significant factor weighed by the Court was the pendency of several other proceedings involving the same parties in Kurukshetra and Pehowa.

The Court observed that no satisfactory explanation had been offered as to why only the two civil suits were sought to be transferred while the applicant continued to pursue the remaining cases at the same venues.

Court also considered the advanced age of respondent Desh Raj and the allegations that the property transactions and subsequent matrimonial discord may have been orchestrated to deprive him of his property rights.

In these circumstances, the Court observed that the “element of collusion” and “malafide intention” could not be completely ruled out.

Holding that no sufficient ground existed to exercise transfer jurisdiction, the Court ultimately dismissed both transfer applications.

Case Title: Satbir Kaur @ Satbeer Kaur v. Desh Raj and Others and connected matter

Bench: Justice Archana Puri

Date of Judgment: 01.05.2026