Allowed¶24

Laxmi Rani v. Kush

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Feb 2025TA/453/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TA-453-2024; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Archana Puri, J.; transfer application; matrimonial dispute; Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Patiala; wife's convenience; minor school-going child in custody; no independent source of earning; 115 kilometres commute; respondent ex parte (order dated 18.02.2025); application allowed; decision date 27.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

The transfer application was allowed; the specific transferee court/order is not legible in the source owing to OCR corruption. ¶24

Laxmi Rani Vs Kush — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

��

¶2

�

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.110

¶5

TA-453-2024 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025

��

....Applicant

Versus

��

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Mr. Raman Singla, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Respondent proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 18.02.2025.

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

�� ! �� �� ��"# �� "��!��$�%��#�&��!�'�� %��&��%��(��)��

¶17

*��!��%�� !�� �� �

¶18

+��

¶19

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 11.12.2024. One son born from the said wedlock, who is about 9 years old, is in the care and custody of the applicant. However, on account of the matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separate. The applicant is not doing job and thus, has no independent source of earning. She is totally dependent upon her parental

¶20

Sonu 2025.02.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P&HHC

¶21

��

¶22

�

¶23

family. Even, the applicant has filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending in the Courts at Patiala and the respondent has been proceeded ex parte , in the same. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant to commute a distance of about 115 kilometres, to defend the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, more particularly, when the child in the applicant’s custody is schoolgoing.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid fact situation, considering the position of law about preference to be given to the convenience of the wife in the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial dispute, more particularly, when the applicant is taking care of the minor child, who is school-going and also considering the fact that the respondent has not come forth to contest the application, the transfer application is allowed and�� !�� ��  ��"#��"��!��% ��$�%��#�&��!�'��!��&��%��(��)�� ,��"��"#��$�%��#�&��! '��!��-��.��!�)��

¶25

+��-��.��!�)�� $�%��#�&��!�)��/0��!�� "��$�%��#�&��!�)��!��%��% ��#��

¶26

			(ARCHANA PURI)
27.02.2025			JUDGE
Himanshu
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes
	Whether reportable	:	Yes/No

¶27

Sonu 2025.02.27 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P&HHC

Laxmi Rani v. Kush

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Rani v. Kush

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Namna Vs Parvinder Singh

Chandni Vs Robin Sachdeva

Suman Vs Naveen Kumar

Kiran Bala Vs Vikram Singh

Manoj Sud Vs Madhuri Verma and Anr.

Shuchi Vs Manish Arora