In a notable departure from common judicial trends, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined a wife’s petition to transfer an annulment case, pointing out that she has “no responsibilities” preventing her from traveling, whereas her estranged husband suffers from debilitating depression and anxiety that prevents him from traveling alone.
Justice Nidhi Gupta presided over the matter, refusing to transfer the matrimonial proceedings from Patiala to Jalandhar. The court emphasized that the distance between the two cities is a relatively short 155 kilometers—hardly a two-hour journey—and that the wife would only need to make the trip on scheduled court hearing dates, rather than daily.
A 16-Day Marriage and Debilitating Health Issues
The legal dispute stems from a short-lived marriage. The couple wed in March 2024 according to Sikh rites and rituals. However, the union lasted only 16 to 17 days before they separated, with no children born from the marriage. Following the separation, the husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Patiala, seeking a decree of nullity to annul the marriage.
In response, the estranged wife filed a transfer plea to move the case to her current place of residence in Jalandhar. She argued that the 155-kilometer journey to Patiala presented a significant hardship. Because her parents are elderly and suffer from age-related ailments, she claimed there was “no proficient male member” in her family available to accompany her to the court proceedings.
Additionally, the wife—represented by advocate Sandeep Sharma—claimed she is currently unemployed, has no source of income, is living at the mercy of her parents, and receives no maintenance from her husband. She noted that her husband is a director in the Punjabi film and music industry, earning an estimated Rs 1.5 to 2 lakh per month.
“No Responsibilities” vs. Medical Records
Arguing for the husband, advocate Nitish Garg countered that the wife’s allegations were entirely baseless and concocted. He asserted that because the couple had lived separately since March 2024 after just over a fortnight of marriage, the wife carried no familial or childcare responsibilities. He argued that her transfer petition was simply an attempt to harass his client physically and mentally.
Instead, Garg presented the court with medical records (placed on record as Annexure R-1) showing that the husband is actively undergoing treatment for severe mental health struggles. According to the medical documentation, the husband suffers from depression, sadness, fear, anxiety, social phobia, and a lack of confidence. The records explicitly stated that he is unable to travel alone and requires the constant assistance of his parents to make trips.
Looking at the Legal Precedent
Typically, in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial disputes, the settled legal position tends to favor the wife. Justice Nidhi Gupta acknowledged this standard but noted that the rule is not absolute. The High Court pointed out that in similar circumstances, both the Supreme Court of India and the Punjab and Haryana High Court have previously refused to grant transfer relief to wives.
With medical proof confirming the husband’s inability to travel without parental support, and no “extenuating” physical or mental limitations shown on the wife’s part, the High Court determined there was no justification to shift the case.
“Unlike the respondent, the applicant-wife has no responsibilities as it is the respondent (husband) who is suffering from depression,” the court’s May 14 order read, finalizing the decision to keep the annulment proceedings in Patiala.
