TA-120-202 IN THE HIG 228 Kajal Rajat Chawl CORAM: Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. seeking tran Section 11 o decree of div ‘Rajat Chaw Family Cour 2. received bac behalf of th decided in hi 3. 2026 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-12 Date o Versus Chawla HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate fo I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present pe g transfer of petition filed by the n 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19 of divorce bearing No. HMA/1263/20 Chawla vs. Kajal’, pending adjud y Court Sirsa to a Court of competent j Though ordinary notice issued ed back duly served. However, none of the respondent-husband. Accordi d in his absence. Learned counsel for the petition i) The parties had love according to Hindu Rites ii) No child was born out of iii) Due to matrimonial disc separately since 29.04.20 iv) The distance between petitioner-wife i.e. Gur ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120-2026 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 .…Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA cate for the petitioner. sent petition, the petitioner-wife is y the respondent-husband under ct, 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) for 263/2025 (Annexure P-1) titled as adjudication before the learned etent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur. issued to the respondent has been , none has put in appearance on ccordingly, this petition is being etitioner, inter alia, submits that :- love marriage on 18.11.2023 Rites and customs. out of the said wedlock. al discord the parties are residing .04.2024. een place of residence of the Gurdaspur and the place of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-120-202 4. I have heard the case file. petitioner. 5. counsel for t (Annexure P Sirsa, deserv Sessions Div distance of n 6½ hours to whether the that she is petitioner tha On another C learned coun the petitione however, no learned coun 2026 -2- proceedings filed by pending before the learn about 340 kilometers on o v) The petitioner is jobless and is fully dependent up vi) That the petitioner has provisions of the Pro Domestic Violence Act, to as ‘the DV Act’) befo against the respondent. No other argument has been ma heard learned counsel for the petition se file. I find no merit in the submissio During the course of argument el for the petitioner that the petition be xure P-1) pending adjudication befor deserves to be transferred to a Court ns Division, Gurdaspur, as the petiti ce of nearly 340 kms from Gurdaspur ours to reach by bus on one side. How er the petitioner is physically disabled is not. Further, it is submitted b ner that petitioner is jobless and fully other Court query as to what is the qu d counsel for the petitioner has no rep titioner had filed a petition under the , no details thereof are forthcomin d counsel or the petitioner. by the respondent-husband, learned Family Court, Sirsa, is rs on one side. bless having no source of income ent upon her parents. r has filed a petition under the e Protection of Women from e Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred before the Courts at Gurdaspur en made on behalf of the petitioner. etitioner and carefully gone through missions advanced on behalf of the uments, it is submitted by learned tion bearing No. HMA/1263/2025 before the learned Family Court ourt of competent jurisdiction at petitioner is unable to travel the daspur to Sirsa, as, it takes around However, on a Court query as to sabled, learned counsel has replied itted by learned counsel for the fully dependent upon her parents. the qualification of the petitioner, no reply. It is also submitted that er the provisions of the DV Act, coming either on record or from ner. ugh f the RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-120-202 6. that no exte petitioner, on travel to Sirs Court is we emanating fr in certain sim well as this may be refer wherein Hon the wife’s a Reference in where, in s applications Smt. Akhw 2019 Nisha 7. present case finding no m 8. 14.05.2026 rishu 2026 -3- In view of the facts as enumer o extenuating circumstances have b ner, on the basis of which it is shown Sirsa and that too not daily but only is well aware of the preponderance ting from matrimonial disputes is in f ain similar cases as the present one, th s this Court have refused relief to the e referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 in Hon’ble Supreme Court under sim ife’s application seeking transfer of p nce in this regard may also be mad , in similar circumstances this Co ations filed on behalf of the wife. The Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpree isha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Y Accordingly, in view of the fa t case as noted above, as also the prec g no merit in this petition, the same is Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable numerated above, I am of the view ave been brought to light by the hown that she is not in a position to ut only on the dates of hearing. This erance of law in cases of transfer is in favour of the wife. However, one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as to the wife. One such case which 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. SrijitDas’ er similar circumstances dismissed r of petition filed by the husband. e made to two cases of this Court is Court had dismissed transfer fe. These are: TA no. 126 of 2018 rpreet Singh; and TA No. 299 of eer Yadav. the facts and circumstances of the he precedents of Case law as above, me is hereby dismissed. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the ove, RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.