RA-CR-122 IN TA-694 IN THE HIG 101 Jyoti Pankaj Kum CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. present revie 114 and 151 by this Cour 2. the aforesaid Section 13 No. HMA/3 pending befo at Sonipat. petition bear the Family C 3. husband sub 122-2026 694-2026 -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA RA-C IN TA Date o .…No Versus Kumar .... Re M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advoca for the review-applicant/respond I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The review-applicant/respond review application under Order XLV d 151 CPC for review of judgment/ Court in TA-694-2026 titled as ‘Jyoti Briefly stated, the non-applica resaid main petition seeking transfer o n 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 MA/375/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled a g before the learned Family Court, Pa Vide order under review, the ma n bearing No. HMA/375/2024 was or mily Court, Panchkula to the Family C Learned counsel for the submits that the order dated 20.05. D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-122-2026 TA-694-2026 Date of Decision: 07.08.2026 Non-applicant/petitioner Review-applicant/Respondent NIDHI GUPTA dvocate espondent-husband. spondent-husband has filed the er XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections ent/order dated 20.05.2026, passed Jyoti vs. Pankaj Kumar’. applicant/petitioner-wife has filed nsfer of petition filed by her under 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) bearing titled as ‘Jyoti vs. Pankaj Kumar’ Panchkula to the Family Court he main case was allowed and the was ordered to be transferred from mily Court at Sonipat. the review-applicant/respondent- 20.05.2026 deserves to be reviewed the ssed wed RISHU KATARIA 2026.08.13 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-122 IN TA-694 on the factu bearing No. filed by the n the first para the said pe Husband. It review, it is residence of proceedings Panchkula is that the orde the petition u as ‘Jyoti vs. wife herself husband. 4. 5. detail. 6. not meant to raise the poin can be revie meaning the judgment. The errors 122-2026 694-2026 -2- e factual premise that the petition u g No. HMA/375/2024 titled as ‘Jyoti y the non-applicant/petitioner wife her st paragraph of the order under revie id petition has been filed by the nd. It is further submitted that in p , it is observed by this Court that the nce of the non-applicant/petitioner-wif dings filed by the review-appl kula is about 250 Kms. is also incor e order dated 20.05.2026 be reviewed tition under Section 13 of the Act bear vs. Pankaj Kumar’ has been filed b erself at Panchkula and not by the No other argument is made on b I have heard learned counsel It is established position in law eant to permit the review-applicant to he points that could have been raised. A e reviewed if there is manifest erro ng thereby that there is a clear a As such, I find no such error in errors mentioned by the review ition under Section 13 of the Act Jyoti vs. Pankaj Kumar’ has been ife herself at Panchkula; whereas in r review it has been mentioned that y the review-applicant/respondent- t in para 2(v) of the order under at the distance between the place of wife i.e. Sonipat and the place of applicant/respondent-husband at incorrect. It is accordingly prayed iewed keeping in view the fact that ct bearing No. HMA/375/2024 titled filed by the non-applicant/petitioner y the review-applicant/respondent- de on behalf of the review applicant. unsel and perused the case file in in law that a review application is cant to re-argue the entire case and aised. An order passed by this Court t error on the face of the record lear and obvious mistake in the rror in the order dated 20.05.2026. eview-applicant are inadvertent/ Act een that nder e of e of at yed that itled oner ant. e in RISHU KATARIA 2026.08.13 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-122 IN TA-694 typographica dated 20.05. been filed. 7. transfer of a Court is to c minor child, earning capa the wife i.e. of her famil residence as expenses. 8. review the o accordingly 9. order under r 122-2026 694-2026 -3- aphical errors in the first paragraph 20.05.2026 on the basis of which the p Moreover, it is also well settle r of a matrimonial dispute/ case, at is to consider the family condition of child, economic condition of the w g capacity of the husband and most i fe i.e. she cannot travel alone without family, connectivity of the place to nce as well as bearing of the litiga In view of the above noted posi the order/judgment dated 20.05.2026 ingly stands dismissed. It is also ordered that para Nos under review dated 20.05.2026, now re 1. By way of filing the pres wife is seeking transfer of p Section 13 of the Hindu Mar ‘the Act’) bearing No. HMA titled as ‘Jyoti vs. Pankaj K learned Family Court, Panchk Sonipat. and para No. 2(v) of the order h the present review application has l settled that while considering the se, at the instance of the wife, the tion of the wife, the custody of the the wife, her physical health and most important the convenience of ithout assistance of a male member lace to and fro from her place of litigation charges and travelling d position, no ground is made out to 5.2026 Present Review Application ra Nos. 1 and para No. 2(v) of the now read as follows:- present petition, the petitioner- of petition filed by her under Marriage Act, 1955 (for short- MA/375/2024 (Annexure P-1) aj Kumar’ pending before the nchkula to the Family Court at ut to tion the RISHU KATARIA 2026.08.13 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RA-CR-122 IN TA-694 07.08.2026 rishu 122-2026 694-2026 -4- 2(v) The distance between petitioner-wife i.e. So proceedings filed by her Kms. on both side. It is frequently travel from So 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable een place of residence of the Sonipat and the place of her at Panchkula is about 250 It is very dPifficult for her to m Sonipat to Panchkula.” ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.08.13 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.