TA-252-2025 (O&M) 105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Pooja Rani Gaurav Kapoor CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dipanshu Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-7260-CII-2026 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and Reply is taken on record. TA-252-2025 Prayer in this petition filed by petition petition filed by the respondent the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) for declaring the marriage of the petitioner and respondent as null and void Vs. Pooja Rani” bearing case No.HMA/576/2024 (Annexure P the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court Panchkula jurisdiction at Tarn Taran 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- TA Date of Decision : 21.05.2026 VERSUS CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dipanshu Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 2026 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and Reply is taken Prayer in this petition filed by petition petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) for declaring the marriage of the petitioner and respondent as null and void Vs. Pooja Rani” bearing case No.HMA/576/2024 (Annexure P Principal Judge, Family Court Panchkula at Tarn Taran. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-252-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.05.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dipanshu Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and Reply is taken Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer of the husband under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) for declaring the marriage of the petitioner and respondent as null and void titled as “Gaurav Kapoor Vs. Pooja Rani” bearing case No.HMA/576/2024 (Annexure P-1) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court Panchkula to the Court of competent This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and Reply is taken wife is for transfer of the husband under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) for declaring the titled as “Gaurav Kapoor 1) pending before to the Court of competent TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-252-2025 (O&M) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner w respondent on 24.02.2023. No child is born out of their wedlock. Parties are residing separately since February 2024 due to matrimonial discord. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above mentioned petition file Marriage Act, from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran on account of the following reasons: i) not have the means to travel the distance of about 245 kms one way from Tarn Taran to Panchkula; ii) enter It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allo afore-mentioned petition filed under Section 11 of HMA Annexure P transferred from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran. 4. Per contra, opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present transfer petition is not maintainable as at the time of her marriage to the respondent, petitioner had failed to disclose previously married and that she had no valid legal separation or divorce from her previous husband. It is submitted that therefore, petitioner had married the respondent under a false pretext and impression, as a result of w has sought annulment of his marriage to the petitioner; which in any event, is not legal, as petitioner is not legally divorced. It is submitted that the petitioner has 2025 (O&M) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner w respondent on 24.02.2023. No child is born out of their wedlock. Parties are residing separately since February 2024 due to matrimonial discord. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above mentioned petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran on account of the following reasons: That the petitioner is unemployed, therefore, the petiti not have the means to travel the distance of about 245 kms one way from Tarn Taran to Panchkula; That the petitioner also faces threat to her life and liberty if she enters Panchkula; It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allo mentioned petition filed under Section 11 of HMA Annexure P transferred from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran. Per contra, Ld counsel for the respondent opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present transfer petition is not maintainable as at the time of her marriage to the respondent, petitioner had failed to disclose previously married and that she had no valid legal separation or divorce from her previous husband. It is submitted that therefore, petitioner had married the respondent under a false pretext and impression, as a result of w has sought annulment of his marriage to the petitioner; which in any event, is not legal, as petitioner is not legally divorced. It is submitted that the petitioner has -2- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 24.02.2023. No child is born out of their wedlock. Parties are residing separately since February 2024 due to matrimonial discord. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran on account of the following reasons:- hat the petitioner is unemployed, therefore, the petitioner does not have the means to travel the distance of about 245 kms one way hat the petitioner also faces threat to her life and liberty if she It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allowed and the mentioned petition filed under Section 11 of HMA Annexure P-1 be transferred from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent Ld counsel for the respondent-husband vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present transfer petition is not maintainable as at the time of her marriage to the to the respondent that she was previously married and that she had no valid legal separation or divorce from her previous husband. It is submitted that therefore, petitioner had married the respondent under a false pretext and impression, as a result of which respondent has sought annulment of his marriage to the petitioner; which in any event, is not legal, as petitioner is not legally divorced. It is submitted that the petitioner has as married to the respondent on 24.02.2023. No child is born out of their wedlock. Parties are Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above- husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent oner does not have the means to travel the distance of about 245 kms one way hat the petitioner also faces threat to her life and liberty if she wed and the 1 be transferred from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent husband vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present transfer petition is not maintainable as at the time of her marriage to the to the respondent that she was previously married and that she had no valid legal separation or divorce from her previous husband. It is submitted that therefore, petitioner had married the hich respondent has sought annulment of his marriage to the petitioner; which in any event, is not legal, as petitioner is not legally divorced. It is submitted that the petitioner has TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-252-2025 (O&M) only taken a Panchayati divorce from her previous husband, the legality has been struck down by this Court; and therefore, the previous marriage of the petitioner cannot be stated to have been dissolved. 5. It is further pointed out that as stated by the respondent in his reply the petitioner is residing in Chandiga Station. 6. It is also pointed out that in her rejoinder dated 22.04.202 the petitioner to the reply of the respondent, petitioner has not specifically denied that she is residing and working in Chandigarh petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court the present deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other argument is raised parties. I have heard learned c merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 8. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent to the present transfer petition shows that the respondent has specifically mentioned th previous marriage and Panchayati divorce dated 02.07.2021 obtained by the petitioner from her previous Husband. The said facts have not been denied by the petitioner in her rejoinder. Even in respect of her employment at Chandigarh, railway station, the petitioner has stated that ‘ working at Chandigarh Railway Station (if at all) does not dilute the genuine grounds taken in the Transfer Application specifically denied her residence and/or employment at Chandigarh Railway Station. As such, petitioner has not made out any hardship in attending to the proceedings before the Family Court at Panchkula. 2025 (O&M) only taken a Panchayati divorce from her previous husband, the legality has been struck down by this Court; and therefore, the previous marriage of the petitioner cannot be stated to have been dissolved. It is further pointed out that as stated by the respondent in his reply the petitioner is residing in Chandigarh and working at Chandigarh, Railway It is also pointed out that in her rejoinder dated 22.04.202 the petitioner to the reply of the respondent, petitioner has not specifically denied that she is residing and working in Chandigarh petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court the present deserves to be dismissed. No other argument is raised on parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent to the present transfer petition shows that the respondent has specifically mentioned th previous marriage and Panchayati divorce dated 02.07.2021 obtained by the petitioner from her previous Husband. The said facts have not been denied by the petitioner in her rejoinder. Even in respect of her employment at Chandigarh, lway station, the petitioner has stated that ‘mere fact that the petitioner may be working at Chandigarh Railway Station (if at all) does not dilute the genuine grounds taken in the Transfer Application.” Clearly, therefore, petitioner has not denied her residence and/or employment at Chandigarh Railway Station. As such, petitioner has not made out any hardship in attending to the proceedings before the Family Court at Panchkula. -3- only taken a Panchayati divorce from her previous husband, the legality of which has been struck down by this Court; and therefore, the previous marriage of the petitioner cannot be stated to have been dissolved. It is further pointed out that as stated by the respondent in his reply rh and working at Chandigarh, Railway It is also pointed out that in her rejoinder dated 22.04.2026 filed by the petitioner to the reply of the respondent, petitioner has not specifically denied that she is residing and working in Chandigarh. It is contended that therefore petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court, on this short ground alone behalf of learned counsel for the ounsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent to the present transfer petition shows that the respondent has specifically mentioned therein regarding the previous marriage and Panchayati divorce dated 02.07.2021 obtained by the petitioner from her previous Husband. The said facts have not been denied by the petitioner in her rejoinder. Even in respect of her employment at Chandigarh, mere fact that the petitioner may be working at Chandigarh Railway Station (if at all) does not dilute the genuine .” Clearly, therefore, petitioner has not denied her residence and/or employment at Chandigarh Railway Station. As such, petitioner has not made out any hardship in attending to the proceedings before the Family Court at Panchkula. of which has been struck down by this Court; and therefore, the previous marriage of the It is further pointed out that as stated by the respondent in his reply rh and working at Chandigarh, Railway filed by the petitioner to the reply of the respondent, petitioner has not specifically denied . It is contended that therefore alone behalf of learned counsel for the ounsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent to the present transfer erein regarding the previous marriage and Panchayati divorce dated 02.07.2021 obtained by the petitioner from her previous Husband. The said facts have not been denied by the petitioner in her rejoinder. Even in respect of her employment at Chandigarh, mere fact that the petitioner may be working at Chandigarh Railway Station (if at all) does not dilute the genuine .” Clearly, therefore, petitioner has not denied her residence and/or employment at Chandigarh Railway Station. As such, petitioner has not made out any hardship in attending to the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-252-2025 (O&M) 9. Even otherwise, the present petition deserves to be dismissed short ground that petitioner has concealed the above said material facts from this Court. In this situation, reference may be made to judgment of this Court in Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2126995, wherein it is held that: “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 fou misleading the Court.” 10. Same view has been taken by this Court in Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2726492; Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2027329; Law Finder Doc ID # 22 11. 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 ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. Reference ma 2025 (O&M) Even otherwise, the present petition deserves to be dismissed short ground that petitioner has concealed the above said material facts from this Court. In this situation, reference may be made to judgment of this Court in Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # erein it is held that:- “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 # 2726492; 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. 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 rt have declined relief to the wife. One such case is: ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar 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 -4- Even otherwise, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground that petitioner has concealed the above said material facts 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 # “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 ing 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 nd to be habitual in making misstatements and Same view has been taken by this Court in Sheveta @ Sheveta Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punjab 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) : 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 relief to the wife. One such case is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by y also be made to two cases of this Court where, in on the short ground that petitioner has concealed the above said material facts from this Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # “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 - ing transfer of matrimonial case filed by Earlier transfer application dismissed on merits Review application also Present transfer application dismissed as nd to be habitual in making misstatements and Sheveta @ Sheveta Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punjab 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) : 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 circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by y also be made to two cases of this Court where, in TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-252-2025 (O&M) 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 information, no Ground is made out for grant of prayer made by the petitioner. 12. 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 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. May 21, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) 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 ’. In any event, as noted above, due to 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 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- 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 the 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 noted above, 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 similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf TA No. 126 of 2018 ‘Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. alias Manisha vs. Amarveer concealment of material Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present as noted above, as also the precedents of Case Law as noted above, finding no TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document