TA-1083-2025 (O&M) 152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kajal Sayal Ricky CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner petition filed by the respondent Act, 1955 titled as “Ricky Vs. Kajal Sayal” bearing case No.HMA/1433/2025 (Annexure P-1) pending before Court, Ludhiana District Yamuna Nagar 2. It is, above-mentioned petition filed by the respondent Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) deserves to be transferred from Ludhiana to that:- i) ii) 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- TA Date of Decision : 20.05.2026 VERSUS CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 titled as “Ricky Vs. Kajal Sayal” bearing case No.HMA/1433/2025 1) pending before the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana to the Court of competent jurisdiction District Yamuna Nagar. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mentioned petition filed by the respondent Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) deserves to be transferred to Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar the petitioner was married to the respondent on 10.12.201 no child is born out of this wedlock; -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-1083-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.05.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the respondent. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer of the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 titled as “Ricky Vs. Kajal Sayal” bearing case No.HMA/1433/2025 Additional Principal Judge, Family to the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Family Court Jagadhri, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mentioned petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) deserves to be transferred muna Nagar on account of following reasons the petitioner was married to the respondent on 10.12.2017; no child is born out of this wedlock; wife is for transfer of the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 titled as “Ricky Vs. Kajal Sayal” bearing case No.HMA/1433/2025 Additional Principal Judge, Family i.e. Family Court Jagadhri, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) deserves to be transferred on account of following reasons TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1083-2025 (O&M) iii) since 23.06.2020; iv) follows: v) unable to travel the distance of almost 183 Kms one side from Yamuna Nagar to Ludhiana; vi) harass It is accordingly, prayed that the above HMA be transferred to Ludhiana to Yamuna Nagar. 3. Per contra, ld counsel for the respondent submissions advanced on b has concealed material facts from this Court inasmuch as petitioner is a qualified diploma holder in Hospital Management. Presently petitioner is working as 2025 (O&M) iii) due to matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separately since 23.06.2020; there are six cases pending at Yamuna Nagar, which are as follows:- a) Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C; b) CRM-219/2025 (Execution petition pending in 125 Cr.P.C); c) Petition under Domestic Violence being COMA/65/2021; d) CRM-375-2024 (Execution petition pending under DV Act); e) FIR No.554/2020, under Sections 406, 498 P.S.Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar; f) HMA No.814/2012 (Section 9 HMA petition filed by respondent, transferred from Ludhiana to Jagadhri by this Court, which was dismissed in default as the re did not appear in the same. the petitioner has no source of income and is therefore unable to travel the distance of almost 183 Kms one side from Yamuna Nagar to Ludhiana; the petitioner is facing threat to her life due to constant harassment and torture by the respondent It is accordingly, prayed that the above HMA be transferred to Ludhiana to Yamuna Nagar. Per contra, ld counsel for the respondent submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court inasmuch as petitioner is a qualified diploma holder in Hospital Management. Presently petitioner is working as -2- due to matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separately six cases pending at Yamuna Nagar, which are as Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C; 025 (Execution petition pending in 125 Petition under Domestic Violence being 2024 (Execution petition pending under DV FIR No.554/2020, under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 IPC P.S.Yamuna Nagar City, District Yamuna Nagar; HMA No.814/2012 (Section 9 HMA petition filed by respondent, transferred from Ludhiana to Jagadhri by this Court, which was dismissed in default as the respondent did not appear in the same. the petitioner has no source of income and is therefore unable to travel the distance of almost 183 Kms one side from the petitioner is facing threat to her life due to constant ment and torture by the respondent-husband. It is accordingly, prayed that the above-said petition under Section 13 HMA be transferred to Ludhiana to Yamuna Nagar. Per contra, ld counsel for the respondent-husband opposes ehalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court inasmuch as petitioner is a qualified diploma holder in Hospital Management. Presently petitioner is working as due to matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separately six cases pending at Yamuna Nagar, which are as 025 (Execution petition pending in 125 Petition under Domestic Violence being 2024 (Execution petition pending under DV A, 506 IPC HMA No.814/2012 (Section 9 HMA petition filed by respondent, transferred from Ludhiana to Jagadhri by this spondent the petitioner has no source of income and is therefore unable to travel the distance of almost 183 Kms one side from the petitioner is facing threat to her life due to constant said petition under Section 13 husband opposes ehalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court inasmuch as petitioner is a qualified diploma holder in Hospital Management. Presently petitioner is working as TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1083-2025 (O&M) Helper/Nurse at Sharma Hospital, Yamuna Nag handsome salary of Rs.20,000/ statement. On the other hand, respondent has many financial constraints as he has financial liabilities being the only son responsible for maintain Moreover, the petitioner had left the matrimonial home due to her own whims and fancies. 4. It is submitted that even contention of the petitioner that there are 6 cases pending at Yamuna Nagar is misleading as the petition filed u 125 Cr.P.C already stands decided; in FIR No. 554/2020 filed under Section 406, 498-A, 506 IPC at Police Station Yamuna Nagar Jagadhari by petitioner, the respondent has been acquitted. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. No other argument is raised by behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent. 6. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that she has no source of income as she is not working; whereas the respondent has disclosed in his reply dated 18.11.2025 that the petitioner is employed as a Helper/Nurse at Sharma Hospital at Yamuna Nagar. No rejo thereby admitting the averments made by the respondent. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner has concealed material information from this Court. In this situation, reference may be made to judgment of this Cour Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2126995, held that:- 2025 (O&M) Helper/Nurse at Sharma Hospital, Yamuna Nag handsome salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. This is evident from her bank account statement. On the other hand, respondent has many financial constraints as he has financial liabilities being the only son responsible for maintain Moreover, the petitioner had left the matrimonial home due to her own whims and It is submitted that even contention of the petitioner that there are 6 cases pending at Yamuna Nagar is misleading as the petition filed u 125 Cr.P.C already stands decided; in FIR No. 554/2020 filed under Section 406, A, 506 IPC at Police Station Yamuna Nagar Jagadhari by petitioner, the respondent has been acquitted. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be No other argument is raised by behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that she has no source of income as she is not working; whereas the respondent has disclosed in his reply dated 18.11.2025 that the petitioner is employed as a Helper/Nurse at Sharma Hospital at Yamuna Nagar. No rejoinder thereto has been filed by the petitioner; thereby admitting the averments made by the respondent. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner has concealed material information from this Court. In this situation, reference may be made to judgment of this Cour Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2126995, -3- Helper/Nurse at Sharma Hospital, Yamuna Nagar from where she is getting per month. This is evident from her bank account statement. On the other hand, respondent has many financial constraints as he has financial liabilities being the only son responsible for maintaining his entire family. Moreover, the petitioner had left the matrimonial home due to her own whims and It is submitted that even contention of the petitioner that there are 6 cases pending at Yamuna Nagar is misleading as the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C already stands decided; in FIR No. 554/2020 filed under Section 406, A, 506 IPC at Police Station Yamuna Nagar Jagadhari by petitioner, the respondent has been acquitted. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be No other argument is raised by behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that she has no source of income as she is not working; whereas the respondent has disclosed in his reply dated 18.11.2025 that the petitioner is employed as a Helper/Nurse at Sharma inder thereto has been filed by the petitioner; thereby admitting the averments made by the respondent. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner has concealed material information from this Court. In this situation, reference may be made to judgment of this Court in Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2126995, wherein it is ar from where she is getting per month. This is evident from her bank account statement. On the other hand, respondent has many financial constraints as he has ing his entire family. Moreover, the petitioner had left the matrimonial home due to her own whims and It is submitted that even contention of the petitioner that there are 6 nder Section 125 Cr.P.C already stands decided; in FIR No. 554/2020 filed under Section 406, A, 506 IPC at Police Station Yamuna Nagar Jagadhari by petitioner, the respondent has been acquitted. It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be No other argument is raised by behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in The petitioner has specifically pleaded that she has no source of income as she is not working; whereas the respondent has disclosed in his reply dated 18.11.2025 that the petitioner is employed as a Helper/Nurse at Sharma inder thereto has been filed by the petitioner; thereby admitting the averments made by the respondent. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner has concealed material information from this Court. In this situation, Swati Pathania v. Ritesh wherein it is TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1083-2025 (O&M) “Transfer application seeking transfer of matrimonial case dismissed due to concealment of material facts and misstatements made by the petitioner Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 Transfer application Petitioner respondent due to concealment of material facts dismissed as withdrawn petitioner found to be habitual in making misstatements and misleading the Court.” 7. Same view has been taken by this Court in Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punja Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2027329; Law Finder Doc ID # 2291311. 8. It is also not disputed by the l petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C previously pending at Jagadhri has already been decided; and that the respondent stands acquitted in the FIR No.554 of 2025 filed by the petitioner against the respondent. It is a in the other cases, respondent has not yet put an appearance. Thus, no such extenuating circumstances have been made out by the petitioner as to why she is unable to undertake the travel from Ludhiana to Jagadhri. 9. This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have ref ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das 2025 (O&M) “Transfer application seeking transfer of matrimonial case dismissed due to concealment of material facts and misstatements made by the petitioner-wife. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 Transfer application Petitioner-wife seeking transfer of matrimonial case filed by respondent-husband - Earlier transfer application dismissed on merits due to concealment of material facts dismissed as withdrawn - Present transfer application dismissed as petitioner found to be habitual in making misstatements and misleading the Court.” Same view has been taken by this Court in Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 272649 Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2027329; and Richa Nagpal v. Tarun Nagpal, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2291311. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C previously pending at Jagadhri has already been decided; and that the respondent stands acquitted in the FIR No.554 of 2025 filed by the petitioner against the respondent. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that in the other cases, respondent has not yet put an appearance. Thus, no such extenuating circumstances have been made out by the petitioner as to why she is unable to undertake the travel from Ludhiana to Jagadhri. This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case is: ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar -4- “Transfer application seeking transfer of matrimonial case dismissed due to concealment of material facts and misstatements made by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 Transfer application wife seeking transfer of matrimonial case filed by Earlier transfer application dismissed on merits due to concealment of material facts - Review application also Present transfer application dismissed as petitioner found to be habitual in making misstatements and Same view has been taken by this Court in Sheveta @ Sheveta b And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 272649 Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Richa Nagpal v. Tarun Nagpal, (Punjab And Haryana) : earned counsel for the petitioner that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C previously pending at Jagadhri has already been decided; and that the respondent stands acquitted in the FIR No.554 of 2025 filed lso not disputed by the petitioner that in the other cases, respondent has not yet put an appearance. Thus, no such extenuating circumstances have been made out by the petitioner as to why she is unable to undertake the travel from Ludhiana to Jagadhri. This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as used relief to the wife. One such case is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar “Transfer application seeking transfer of matrimonial case dismissed due to concealment of material facts and misstatements made by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 Transfer application - wife seeking transfer of matrimonial case filed by Earlier transfer application dismissed on merits plication also Present transfer application dismissed as petitioner found to be habitual in making misstatements and Sheveta @ Sheveta b And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2726492; Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Richa Nagpal v. Tarun Nagpal, (Punjab And Haryana) : earned counsel for the petitioner that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C previously pending at Jagadhri has already been decided; and that the respondent stands acquitted in the FIR No.554 of 2025 filed lso not disputed by the petitioner that in the other cases, respondent has not yet put an appearance. Thus, no such extenuating circumstances have been made out by the petitioner as to why she is This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1083-2025 (O&M) circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. Reference may also be ma similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: Gurpreet Singh Yadav’. In any event, as noted above, due to concealment of material information, no Ground is made out for grant of prayer made by the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, merit in this petition, the same is hereby 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. May 20, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. Reference may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife. These are: TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh’; and TA No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manish ’. In any event, as noted above, due to concealment of material information, no Ground is made out for grant of prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case Law as noted above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by de to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. TA No. 299 of 2019 ‘Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer ’. In any event, as noted above, due to concealment of material information, no Ground is made out for grant of prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present as also the precedents of Case Law as noted above, finding no dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by de to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. a vs. Amarveer ’. In any event, as noted above, due to concealment of material information, Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present as also the precedents of Case Law as noted above, finding no TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document