Allowed¶23

Samita Garg v. Vishal Singla

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2025TA/864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TA-864-2024 | Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh | 20.03.2025 | Archana Puri, J. (Oral) | Transfer application allowed; divorce petition to be transferred for wife's convenience; applicant wife without earnings, dependent on parental family; ~120 km commute hardship; second marriage, married 03.07.2017, no child; matrimonial discord, living separately; respondent ex parte (order dated 19.12.2024), did not oppose transfer; counsel Kashish Garg.

What did the court decide?

Divorce petition ordered to be transferred to the court convenient to the applicant (destination court not legible in the source text); transfer application allowed. ¶23

Samita Garg Vs Vishal Singla — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

��

¶2

�

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.120

¶5

TA-864-2024 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025

��

....Applicant

Versus

��

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Mr. Kashish Garg, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Respondent proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.12.2024.

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

�� !" �� �� ��#$ �� #��"��%�&��$�'��('�&��'��)�*��" +��,��&��'�� &��-��.��

¶17

/��"��&��"�� 0��"�� �� �

¶18

,��

¶19

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 03.07.2017, but no child was born from the said wedlock. It was the second marriage of both the applicant, as well as the respondent. However, on account of the Sonu matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separate. The applicant is not 2025.03.20 15:13 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶20

��

¶21

�

¶22

having any source of earning and is solely dependent upon her parental family. No other litigation is stated to be pending between the parties. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant to commute a distance of about 120 kilometres, to defend the divorce petition, from the place of her residence.

¶23

In view of the submissions aforesaid and also 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, considering the fact about the respondent not having coming forward to resist the application, the transfer application is allowed and�� !" �� �� ��#$��#��" ��&��%�&��$�'��('�&��'��)�*��"�+�� ,��"��'��&��-��.��1�� #��#$��%�&��$�'��('�&��'��) ��"��+����"�.��

¶24

,��+��*��"�.��"�� %�&��$�'��"�.��20��"�� #��%�&��$�'��"�.��"��&�� &��$��

¶25

20.03.2025 Himanshu

¶26

(ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶28

Sonu 2025.03.20 15:13 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

Samita Garg v. Vishal Singla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samita Garg v. Vishal Singla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indu Rani Vs Ajit

Ranjeet Kaur Vs Bikkar Singh

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Jagroop Singh

Renu Bala Vs Surender Kumar Bhola

Gurjit Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Muskan Vs Saurabh Agarwal