In a couple of petitions filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court arising out of a matrimonial dispute between petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife), and raising a common grievance regarding the husband’s inability to secure effective legal representation at Moga, seeking transfer of the proceedings out of Moga, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rupinderjit Chahal transferred the proceedings from Moga to a court of competent jurisdiction at Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
The husband invoked Section 447 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking transfer from Moga to Dera Bassi of the criminal proceedings arising out of a FIR dated 15.04.2025, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and of the connected application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The marriage between the husband, employed in the Merchant Navy, and the wife, a doctor residing and working in Australia, was solemnized on 08-12-2023 at Moga. Soon after their marriage, differences arose and the husband alleged that the wife subjected him and his family to harassment and that she had also removed her jewellery from their joint locker after he departed for his sailing duties. Thereafter, the husband instituted a divorce petition before the Family Court at Dera Bassi on 16-12-2024. It was contended that the subsequent FIR and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were initiated as a counterblast to the said proceedings.
The wife pursued the proceedings through her mother as attorney. The husband submitted that he was unable to secure effective legal representation at Moga because the wife’s parents were advocates practising there and the local advocates were reluctant to accept his brief against them. It was also submitted that the husband’s uncle faced hostility from certain Bar members when he visited Moga to obtain the records. The husband further submitted that the difficulty persisted despite his efforts to arrange representation from outside Moga. The husband relied on the order dated 08-07-2025 whereby the wife’s plea seeking transfer of the divorce petition from Dera Bassi to Moga was dismissed and the court noted the reluctance among members of the local Bar at Moga to accept the husband’s brief.
The respondents argued that the allegations of influence were unsubstantiated, that the wife’s parents suffered from serious medical conditions, and that the witnesses were centred at Moga.
The Court stated that the power of transfer is to be exercised upon a substantial foundation and not merely on the basis of a party’s preference or an unsubstantiated apprehension. It was said that the fact that the wife’s parents were advocates at Moga, did not, by itself, justify transfer or establish that they had exercised undue influence over the local Bar or investigating agency. The Court said that the submission that they had remained out of practice due to prolonged ill health deserved consideration.
Further, the Court noted that in the order dated 08-07-2025, the Court had declined to conclude that influence had been exercised in the manner alleged. However, it was found that the husband had to arrange legal assistance from outside the district for the proceedings. It was stated that earlier judicial observations with the reluctance of the locally engaged co-counsel was sufficient to address the husband’s difficulty by changing the place of trial, without recording any finding of undue influence or misconduct against the respondents or local Bar members.
Considering the convenience of the respondents and the witnesses, the Court stated that the pendency of the divorce petition at Dera Bassi does not require every proceeding arising from the matrimonial dispute to be transferred to that place. It was said that the husband’s entitlement was to a fair opportunity to defend the proceedings, it did not confer an absolute right to select the transferee court.
Hence, the Court found that transfer to Jagraon would address the husband’s difficulty while keeping the additional travel and inconvenience to the respondents and witnesses within reasonable bounds. Accordingly, both petitions were allowed to the extent that the proceedings were transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction at Jagraon, District Ludhiana, instead of Dera Bassi, with directions that the transferee court proceed from the stage already reached, that existing bail orders continue, that applications for exemption from personal appearance or participation through video conferencing be considered sympathetically while having regard to the medical circumstances, and that no direction for a joint trial be issued.
