NEW DELHI: A husband files a divorce case before a court having jurisdiction. The wife then approaches the High Court or Supreme Court seeking transfer of the divorce case to the city where she is living.
The husband objects: “I am ready to pay her travelling expenses. Why should my legally filed case be shifted?”
Does that end the transfer petition?
No.
But being the wife does not automatically create a legal right to transfer the case.
Indian courts have taken both approaches. In some cases, transfer has been refused and the husband has instead been directed to pay the wife’s travel, stay and even companion expenses. In other cases, courts have held that the husband’s offer to pay travel expenses cannot neutralise genuine hardship caused by childcare, financial dependence or other circumstances.
The legal position in 2026 is therefore clear on one point:
Paying travel expenses is a factor in a transfer case. It is not a guaranteed veto against transfer.
WHICH LAW GOVERNS TRANSFER OF A DIVORCE CASE?
For a transfer between courts within the jurisdiction contemplated by Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court or District Court has general power to transfer or withdraw a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before a subordinate court.
Where a civil matrimonial proceeding must be transferred from a court in one State to a court in another State, Section 25 CPC empowers the Supreme Court to order transfer where it considers it expedient for the ends of justice.
Husbands should also understand the difference between jurisdiction and transfer.
Under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a matrimonial petition may be instituted at specified places, including where the marriage was solemnised, where the respondent resides, where the spouses last resided together and, where the wife herself is the petitioner, where she resides on the date of presentation. But the fact that a wife can institute her own matrimonial petition where she resides does not, by itself, mean that every divorce petition already instituted by the husband elsewhere must automatically be transferred to her city.
Section 21A of the HMA also applies. Where one spouse first files a petition for judicial separation under Section 10 or divorce under Section 13 and the other spouse subsequently files another Section 10 or Section 13 petition in another District Court, the statutory scheme provides for the later petition to be transferred to the court where the earlier petition was presented, subject to the requirements of Section 21A.
DOES THE HUSBAND AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO PAY THE WIFE’S TRAVEL EXPENSES?
No.
No universal rule says that the moment a wife files a matrimonial transfer petition, the husband automatically becomes legally liable to pay every ticket, hotel bill, and travel expense she claims.
Courts can, however, use payment of reasonable travel and stay expenses as an alternative to transferring the case. Supreme Court decisions have specifically directed husbands to bear such expenses where the transfer itself was refused.
Separately, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is gender-neutral. In proceedings under the Act, either the wife or the husband who lacks sufficient independent income for support and necessary expenses of the proceeding may seek litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite, depending upon the financial circumstances of the parties.
Do not mix these two principles.
A court directing travel expenses while deciding a transfer dispute and a spouse seeking litigation expenses under Section 24 HMA are related financial issues, but they are not the same legal question.
THE 2026 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT CASE EVERY HUSBAND SHOULD READ
The latest important example is Sonam Rani v. Naresh Kumar, TA-853-2026, decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the HMA before the Family Court at Hisar. The wife sought its transfer to Sonepat.
She stated that she was residing in Sonepat with the couple’s minor son and her widowed mother. She pleaded that she had no independent source of income, depended upon her mother and younger brother and was responsible for the child’s day-to-day care. A maintenance proceeding originating from Sonepat was also part of the matrimonial litigation between the parties.
The husband did not merely oppose transfer.
His counsel specifically submitted before the High Court that the husband was willing to bear the travelling expenses the wife incurred whenever her presence was required before the trial court at Hisar. He relied upon Supreme Court precedent including Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma.
The argument did not succeed.
Justice Harkesh Manuja held that Preeti Sharma did not create an “inflexible rule” under which a husband’s willingness to pay travelling expenses automatically defeats the wife’s transfer request.
The High Court distinguished the earlier cases because this wife had additionally pleaded lack of independent income, responsibility for the minor child and dependence upon her widowed mother. The husband’s divorce case was therefore transferred from Hisar to Sonepat.
For husbands, this judgment carries an important warning:
Do not file a two-line objection saying, “I will pay her travel expenses, therefore dismiss the transfer petition.”
That is not enough. The court will examine the complete factual hardship on both sides.
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID ABOUT TRAVEL EXPENSES
In Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma, (2005) 11 SCC 535, the wife sought transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Muzaffarnagar to Delhi, mainly on the ground that she was unemployed and financially dependent.
The Supreme Court held that she had not shown sufficient grounds to justify transfer of the case.
Instead of shifting the proceedings, the Court directed the husband to bear the wife’s and one companion’s travel and stay expenses whenever her presence was required before the court at Muzaffarnagar.
The judgment is important, but its scope should not be overstated.
It does not mean that a husband can always defeat a wife’s transfer petition simply by offering to pay her travel expenses.
That position was reiterated in Sonam Rani v. Naresh Kumar (2026), where the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an offer to bear travelling expenses is only one factor and does not automatically bar transfer.
The correct legal takeaway from Preeti Sharma is narrower:
Where financial difficulty is the main hardship relied upon, the court may sometimes address that hardship by ordering travel and stay expenses instead of transferring the matrimonial case.
SUPREME COURT REFUSED TRANSFER BUT ORDERED HUSBAND TO PAY WIFE’S TRAVEL AND HOTEL EXPENSES
In Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197, the wife sought transfer of the matrimonial case citing her six-year-old child, lack of independent income and health difficulties.
The Supreme Court did not treat these grounds as sufficient on their own. It examined the surrounding circumstances, including the availability of the child’s grandparents and the husband’s willingness to bear the wife’s expenses for attending proceedings.
The Court ultimately refused to transfer the matrimonial case.
At the same time, it ensured that travelling to Delhi would not impose an unreasonable financial burden on the wife. The husband was directed to provide advance expenses for second-class AC train travel for the wife and one companion, along with their stay in a three-star hotel whenever her presence before the court was required.
The decision is important because it shows that a wife’s financial or travel difficulty does not automatically require transfer of the divorce case.
Courts can instead address genuine hardship through travel expenses, companion costs and accommodation, while allowing the proceedings to continue before the existing court.
For husbands opposing a wife’s transfer petition, Anindita Das remains a useful precedent for one clear proposition:
Travel hardship can sometimes be compensated without transferring the entire matrimonial case.
SUPREME COURT: TRAVEL EXPENSES CAN BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFERRING THE DIVORCE CASE
In Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet Singh, the wife sought transfer of the matrimonial proceedings mainly on the ground that she was financially dependent upon her father and could not afford to travel to Bathinda to contest the case.
The Supreme Court refused to transfer the proceedings. Instead, it directed that the husband could be made to bear the wife’s to-and-fro travel and stay expenses, including the expenses of her companions, whenever her presence before the court was required. The trial court was left to determine the appropriate amount and ensure payment.
A similar approach was taken in Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar v. Dr Deviprakash Thakar, (1996) 11 SCC 96.
The wife sought transfer of the matrimonial case from Bombay to Palanpur. The Supreme Court refused transfer after considering the overall circumstances, including that the husband was a medical practitioner, his aged and ailing mother required his care, important witnesses were located in Bombay, the wife had relatives there, and the two places were connected by train.
The husband had also undertaken to pay the wife’s travel expenses, including the cost of an escort.
These decisions are important for husbands opposing a wife’s divorce transfer petition.
They show that financial difficulty in travelling does not always require transfer of the entire matrimonial case. In appropriate circumstances, the court may address that hardship by directing the husband to bear reasonable travel, stay or companion expenses.
But the offer to pay travel costs is only one factor among many.
Travel expenses can be an alternative to transfer. They are not an automatic defence.
WHY DOES THE WIFE’S CONVENIENCE STILL MATTER?
A husband opposing transfer must also understand the authorities that operate in the wife’s favour.
In N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, Civil Appeal No. 4894 of 2022, the Supreme Court stated that matrimonial transfer decisions require consideration of the parties’ economic position, social circumstances, standard of life and circumstances in which they sustain themselves.
The Court said that, under the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm, the wife’s convenience must generally be considered while considering transfer. The wife in that case was young, dependent upon her parents and already pursuing connected proceedings at Chennai, and transfer was allowed.
The important word is generally.
That is not the same as automatically.
The Supreme Court itself demonstrated this in Delma Lubna Coelho v. Edmond Clint Fernandes, 2023 INSC 389, where a wife sought transfer from Mangaluru to Mumbai. She was a permanent resident of Canada, was professionally employed, had participated in online mediation, and had no child from the marriage requiring her care. The Court held that she could travel to Mangaluru and could seek exemption from personal appearance where appropriate. Transfer was refused.
HUSBAND OFFERED TRAVEL EXPENSES, YET WIFE’S TRANSFER PETITION WAS ALLOWED
In Sakshi Verma v. Nitesh Verma, 2026:CGHC:30832, the wife sought transfer of the husband’s divorce case from Raipur to Bilaspur.
The husband opposed the transfer by pointing out that the two cities were connected by direct bus and train services. He also offered to bear the wife’s travel expenses to attend the proceedings.
The Chhattisgarh High Court still allowed the transfer.
The Court considered that the wife was residing at Bilaspur with the minor child, maintenance execution proceedings were already pending there, and attending the divorce case at Raipur would involve a round trip of about 240 kilometres.
At the same time, the Court also addressed the husband’s inconvenience. After transferring the case, it permitted him to participate through video conferencing on dates when his physical presence was not specifically required.
The judgment highlights an important principle in matrimonial transfer cases:
An offer by the husband to pay travel expenses is relevant, but it does not automatically defeat the wife’s transfer petition.
Courts can balance hardship on both sides through measures such as travel costs, exemption from personal appearance, video conferencing and suitable scheduling of hearings, instead of treating transfer proceedings as an all-or-nothing contest.
CAN A HUSBAND STOP TRANSFER BY OFFERING TO PAY TRAVEL EXPENSES?
He can make the offer. He should not assume the offer will decide the case.
A useful husband-side reply should establish the complete litigation chronology, the actual distance involved, transport connectivity, how frequently personal appearance is genuinely required, the wife’s actual financial and travel circumstances, connected proceedings, responsibility for children on either side, health conditions, dependent parents and the husband’s own employment or caregiving obligations.
If financial hardship is the wife’s principal ground, a reasonable offer to cover actual travel and stay expenses can directly address that hardship.
But if her case additionally involves a very young child, lack of support, serious illness, multiple connected cases in her city or other substantial circumstances, paying a train fare may not answer the real difficulty.
That is exactly what Sonam Rani demonstrates.
BE CAREFUL BEFORE OFFERING TO PAY WIFE’S TRAVEL EXPENSES IN A TRANSFER PETITION
A husband should think carefully before making a broad statement such as, “I will bear all her expenses,” while opposing a wife’s transfer petition.
Once the court records such an undertaking, it may form part of the judicial order, and the husband may be expected to comply with it.
If the husband is willing to bear travel expenses to oppose transfer of the divorce case, the offer should be specific and reasonable. It may be limited to necessary travel for hearings where the wife’s personal presence is actually required, reasonable accommodation where an overnight stay is unavoidable, and any additional amount specifically directed by the court.
Importantly, no fixed statutory amount exists for a wife’s travel expenses in a matrimonial transfer case.
Depending on the facts, courts have directed husbands to pay ordinary travel and stay expenses, advance AC train fare, expenses for a companion or escort, and even hotel accommodation. But these directions arose from the particular circumstances of those cases.
Therefore, a wife cannot automatically claim a particular class of travel, hotel category or fixed sum merely because she has filed a divorce transfer petition.
For husbands, the practical rule is simple:
Do not give an unlimited undertaking. Clearly define what expenses you are willing to bear and leave the final amount subject to the court’s order and the actual necessity of travel.
WHAT SHOULD A HUSBAND PLACE BEFORE THE COURT?
Do not oppose a wife’s divorce transfer petition with rhetoric about biased laws.
Oppose it with evidence.
If the wife is employed, place lawful proof of employment and financial capacity before the court. If she regularly travels, place legally admissible material showing her actual mobility where relevant. If trains, flights or direct buses make attendance reasonably manageable, put the travel facts on record.
More importantly, establish your own hardship.
If you care for aged parents, prove their dependency and medical condition. The Telangana High Court’s 2026 decision shows why documents about an elderly dependent parent can matter. If witnesses and evidence are centred around the existing forum, explain that. If connected matrimonial proceedings actually favour consolidation elsewhere, be prepared to deal with that honestly.
And where personal presence is unnecessary, seek exemption or virtual appearance instead of turning every routine date into an interstate journey.
A transfer court is deciding where the litigation should continue, not who was the better husband or wife.
Keep the reply focused on the issue the court is actually deciding.
SECTION 21A HMA CAN CHANGE THE ENTIRE TRANSFER STRATEGY
One provision husbands often miss in matrimonial transfer disputes is Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Where one spouse first files a petition under Section 10 for judicial separation or Section 13 for divorce, and the other spouse later files another petition under either of these provisions before a different District Court, Section 21A may require the subsequent petition to be transferred to the court where the earlier petition is already pending, so both matters can be heard together.
This can materially change the transfer argument.
Before focusing only on distance, travel expenses or convenience, first check:
Who filed first, what petition was filed, under which provision, and before which court?
The sequence of proceedings can be crucial.
In appropriate cases, Section 21A HMA may determine where the matrimonial litigation should continue, making the chronology of filings as important as the parties’ travel hardship.
CONCLUSION
So, who pays the travel expenses when a wife seeks transfer of a divorce case?
There is no automatic rule.
A wife cannot claim transfer merely because travelling to the existing court is inconvenient or expensive. At the same time, a husband cannot defeat a genuine transfer request simply by saying, “I am ready to pay her travel expenses.”
Courts examine the real hardship on both sides.
In some cases, courts have refused transfer and directed the husband to bear the wife’s reasonable travel, stay or companion expenses. In others, courts have transferred the matrimonial case despite such an offer because the wife’s difficulty went beyond the cost of a ticket, such as childcare responsibilities, financial dependence, health issues or connected litigation.
For husbands, the lesson is simple:
Do not oppose a transfer petition only with an offer to pay travel expenses. Build the case around comparative hardship.
Show why the existing court remains practical and fair. Place your employment constraints, dependent parents, medical responsibilities, travel burden, location of witnesses and connected proceedings on record. At the same time, show whether the wife’s stated difficulty can reasonably be addressed through travel costs, an exemption from personal appearance, or video conferencing instead of transferring the entire case.
Ultimately, travel expenses are only one factor. They are neither an automatic liability nor a guaranteed defence against transfer.
A strong transfer case is not won by saying who should travel.
It is won by proving whose hardship is real, greater and supported by evidence.
FAQs
- Can a husband be forced to pay wife’s travel expenses in a divorce transfer case?
Yes, but not automatically. The court may order reasonable travel and stay expenses depending on the facts and financial position of both parties.
- Will offering travel expenses stop the wife from getting the divorce case transferred?
Not necessarily. In Sonam Rani v. Naresh Kumar, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that such an offer alone does not defeat a genuine transfer request.
- Can the court refuse transfer but still make the husband pay for the wife’s travel?
Yes. Courts have refused transfer while directing husbands to bear reasonable travel, stay or companion expenses.
- Can a husband oppose transfer because he has aged or dependent parents?
Yes, if the hardship is genuine and supported by evidence. Courts can consider the husband’s caregiving and family responsibilities while deciding transfer.
- Can the husband appear through video conferencing after the divorce case is transferred?
Yes, where the court permits it. Personal appearance may be relaxed on dates where physical presence is not necessary.
