Dismissed

Kajal v. Rajat Chawla

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2026TA/120/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner-wife sought transfer of husband's divorce petition from Family Court Sirsa to Gurdaspur due to distance and financial dependency. Court found no merit, noting lack of physical disability and unclear employment status, and dismissed the transfer application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kajal Vs Rajat Chawla — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

TA-120-2026 -1-

¶2

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 TA-120-2026 Dat e of Decision: 14.05.2026

¶3

Kajal .…Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Rajat Cha w la .... Respondent

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶7

Present: - Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

By way of filing the present p etition, the petitioner-wife is seeking tr a nsfer of petition filed by t h e respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1 955 (for short-‘the Act’) for decree of d ivorce bearing No. HMA/1263 / 2025 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Rajat Ch a wla vs. Kajal’, pending adj u dication before the learned Family Co u rt Sirsa to a Court of competen t jurisdiction at Gurdaspur. 2. Though ordinary notice issu e d to the respondent has been received back duly served. However, no n e has put in appearance on behalf of t he respondent-husband. Accordingly, this petition is being decided in his absence.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petiti o ner , inter alia, submits that :- i) The parties had lo v e marriage on 18.11.2023 according to Hindu Rit e s and customs.

¶11

ii) No child was born out o f the said wedlock.

¶12

iii) Due to matrimonial di s cord the parties are residing separately since 29.04. 2 024.

¶13

iv) The distance betwee n place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. G u rdaspur and the place of

¶14

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶15

TA-120-2026

¶16

-2-

¶17

proceedings filed b y the respondent-husband, pending before the le a rned Family Court, Sirsa, is about 340 kilometers o n one side.

¶18

v) The petitioner is jobles s having no source of income and is fully dependent u pon her parents.

¶19

vi) That the petitioner h a s filed a petition under the provisions of the P r otection of Women from Domestic Violence A c t, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) b e fore the Courts at Gurdaspur against the respondent.

¶20

No other argument has been m ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have hea r d learned counsel for the petiti o ner and carefully gone through the case fi l e. I find no merit in the submis s ions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

¶21

During the course of argume n ts, it is submitted by learned counsel fo r the petitioner that the petition bearing No. HMA/1263/2025 (Annexure P-1) pending adjudication bef o re the learned Family Court Sirsa, deserves to be transferred to a Cou r t of competent jurisdiction at Sessions D ivision, Gurdaspur, as the pet i tioner is unable to travel the distance o f nearly 340 kms from Gurdasp u r to Sirsa, as, it takes around 6½ hours t o reach by bus on one side. However, on a Court query as to whether th e petitioner is physically disabl e d, learned counsel has replied that she i s not. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner t hat petitioner is jobless and full y dependent upon her parents. On anothe r Court query as to what is the q ualification of the petitioner, learned co u nsel for the petitioner has no reply. It is also submitted that the petitio n er had filed a petition under t h e provisions of the DV Act, however, n o details thereof are forthco m ing either on record or from learned co u nsel or the petitioner.

¶22

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

TA-120-2026 -3-

¶24

In view of the facts as enum e rated above, I am of the view that no e x tenuating circumstances have been brought to light by the petitioner, on the basis of which it is show n that she is not in a position to travel to S i rsa and that too not daily but o n ly on the dates of hearing. This Court is w ell aware of the preponderan c e of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is i n favour of the wife. However, in certain s imilar cases as the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to t he wife. One such case which may be re f erred to is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. SrijitDas ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under s i milar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. Reference in this regard may also be m a de to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this C ourt had dismissed transfer applicatio n s filed on behalf of the wife. T hese are: TA no. 126 of 2018 Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh; and TA No. 299 of 2019 Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav.

¶25

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present ca s e as noted above, as also the p r ecedents of Case law as above, finding no merit in this petition, the same i s hereby dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any , shall also stand disposed of.

¶26

14.05.2026 rishu

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶28

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶29

RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Kajal v. Rajat Chawla

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kajal v. Rajat Chawla

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reha Vs Amit Kumar

Parminder Kaur Vs Satwinder Singh

Diksha Vs Himanshu Johar

Sumanpreet Kaur Vs Gurpiar Singh

Kulwinder Kaur Vs Hargopal Singh

Harpreet Kaur Vs Gursewak Singh