The High Court refused to entertain a transfer petition filed by the wife in a matrimonial dispute, stating that the plea was nothing but sweet revenge by her to prevent the husband from seeking his rights.

The Court emphasised that the Court should not be swayed by emotions tilting towards the “fairer sex”.

“In this modern era, there is a clamour for equity of sexes and merely because the applicant is a wife, the Court should not be swayed by emotions tilting towards fairer sex.”

The dispute between the parties had led to the filing of multiple claims and counterclaims. The wife was a resident of Nabha in Patiala district, and had moved a complaint against the husband.

After the parties resolved their issues, they had a falling out, following which the husband filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending before a family court in Amritsar.

The High Court refused to entertain the wife’s transfer plea, stating that there was no reason for her to be unable to look after the children from the marriage, since she was residing with her parents.

The single-judge took note of the fact that the husband was a dealer while the petitioner was a housewife. It was the High Court’s stand that the plea was put forth to 'harass' the husband by making him attend proceedings at a far-off place.

Accordingly, the Court held,

"The wife cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of her own wrongs and rather the present petition is nothing but a sweet revenge by the wife to force the husband not to seek his rights under the law..."

Jurisdiction in such matters was not to be invoked unless there were bona fide, compelling reasons for the Court to come to the aid of the applicant, the single-judge observed while dismissing the plea.