Madhu Chopra Vs Aditya Dayal — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Madhu Chopra Vs Aditya Dayal — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife should be allowed, i.e., whether the respondent-husband's petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 (No. HMA/2153/2024) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad ought to be transferred to the competent Court at Panchkula.

Court's answer

On the material on record (Memo of Parties, the ICMR Letter of Appointment and the notice received by the petitioner in the Section 13 HMA petition), the petitioner is in actual fact residing and working in New Delhi; her contentions that she resides at Panchkula are misleading.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner is working at New Delhi, it will be more convenient for her to pursue the case at Faridabad itself, which is far closer to New Delhi than Panchkula.

Key takeaways

Although the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife, in similar cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer petition TA-557-2025(O&M) (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Nidhi Gupta, J., 18.05.2026) filed by wife Madhu Chopra seeking transfer of the husband Aditya Dayal's divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 ('Aditya Dayal Vs. Madhu Chopra', No. HMA/2153/2024) from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad to Panchkula — DISMISSED. Though the preponderance of law in matrimonial-transfer cases favours the wife, the Court found from the Memo of Parties, the ICMR Letter of Appointment dated 10.06.2024 (address at Gurugram) and the notice received by the petitioner in the underlying Section 13 petition that she was in actual fact residing and working in New Delhi; her claim of residing at Panchkula was held misleading, and Faridabad was observed to be far more convenient to New Delhi than Panchkula. Relief was refused following Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197, and two earlier decisions of this Court — TA No. 126 of 2018 (Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet Singh) and TA No. 299 of 2019 (Nisha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Yadav) — in which similar transfer applications by wives were dismissed.

TA-557-2025 Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 142

TA-557-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 18.05.2026

Madhu Chopra

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Aditya Dayal

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Advocate Karan Dev Sharma Advocate Gurneet Sagoo Advocate Dhruv Sharma for the petitioner.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer of

the petition filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 titled as “Aditya Dayal Vs. Madhu Chopra” bearing case No.HMA/2153/2024 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad to the competent Court at Panchkula.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the above-mentioned petition filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act deserves to be transferred from Faridabad to Panchkula on account of following reasons that: -

i) the petitioner was married to the respondent on 23.02.2023;

SUNENA 2026.05.20 11:01 I agree to specified portions of this document

TA-557-2025 Page 2 of 5

ii) due to matrimonial discord, the parties started living

separately from 06.07.2023. The marriage subsisted only for five months;

iii) no child is born out of this wedlock;

iv) the petitioner is working on contractual basis with ICMR at New Delhi;

v) there are two other cases already pending at Chandigarh/Panchkula which are as under: -

Criminal Complaint to SSP Chandigarh (Annexure P2);

FIR No.0017 of 2025 (Annexure P5) at Police Station Panchkula.

vii) one way distance between Faridabad to Panchkula is 280 kms. and petitioner is unable to travel;

viii) the petitioner also fears for her safety to travel as the respondent has attempted to assault the petitioner in her workplace in respect of which the petitioner has moved complaint dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P6) to the SHO, Police Station Hauz Khas; as also complaint dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure P7) to the Commissioner of Police, Sector 4, Panchkula; as also complaint dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P8) before the Chowki Incharge, Police Station Sector 1, Panchkula.

It is accordingly prayed that the present petition be allowed

and the case filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act be transferred from Faridabad to Panchkula.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband vehemently opposes the submissions of the petitioner and submits that the

SUNENA 2026.05.20 11:01 I agree to specified portions of this document

TA-557-2025 Page 3 of 5

present petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained as the same

is not supported by valid affidavit; inasmuch as, the affidavit filed by the petitioner is dated 6.4.2025, whereas the present petition has been filed thereafter on 7.4.2025. It is further pointed out that it is evident from the record that the petitioner is not staying at Panchkula. Ld. counsel for the respondent takes this Court through the case file to demonstrate his above-

said contention. It is submitted that therefore, present petition has been filed only to harass the respondent.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the case file shows that in the Memo of Parties, the petitioner has shown herself to be a resident of “R/o 945/19, near Raj Karyana Store, Durga Garden, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar Haryana, presently residing at H.No.527, Sector 6, Panchkula.”

However, in Para 15 of the present transfer petition, the petitioner has stated “That, the Petitioner is presently residing at Panchkula with her younger brother and is currently pursuing a contractual job with ICMR, New Delhi where she comes back on weekends and more frequently,

as per her work schedule.”. It is not clear to this Court as to how the petitioner can be pursuing job at ICMR, New Delhi while at the same time living in Panchkula. Needless to say, if the petitioner is working at New Delhi, then it will be more convenient for her to pursue the case in Faridabad itself which is far closer to New Delhi than Panchkula.

SUNENA 2026.05.20 11:01 I agree to specified portions of this document

TA-557-2025 Page 4 of 5

Another anomaly that emerges from the record is that in the

Letter of Appointment dated 10.06.2024 (Annexure P9) written by the ICMR

to the petitioner, address of the petitioner is mentioned as follows: -

“Dr. Madhu Chopra 695, Sector-22B, Gurugram, Haryana”

Furthermore, the complaint dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P6)

has been moved by the petitioner to the SHO, Police Station Hauz Khas. Even notice in the Section 13 HMA petition (Annexure P1) has been issued

to and received by the petitioner add the following address as mentioned

in the MOP of the said petition under Section 13 HMA:

“Madhu Chopra (38 yrs.)

W/o Aditya Dayal D/o of Sh. Jagmal Singh R/o House No. 945, Ward No. 6, Durga Garden, Jagadhri (Haryana)

also At: Madhu Chopra Consultant (Non-medical) Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Headquarters, AIIMS Campus Temple, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi- 110029”

Whereafter, petitioner is putting in appearance in the said case.

All of the above factors would go to show that the petitioner is in actual fact

SUNENA 2026.05.20 11:01 I agree to specified portions of this document

TA-557-2025 Page 5 of 5

residing and working in New Delhi. Thus, contentions of the petitioner are misleading.

This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the wife. One such case is: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances dismissed the wife’s application seeking transfer of petition filed by the husband. Reference may also be made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife. These 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 ’.

Accordingly, in view of the factual and legal position as noted

above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed .

18.05.2026 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge

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

SUNENA 2026.05.20 11:01 I agree to specified portions of this document