Manjula Bhardwaj v. Shreshth Chaudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.114 Date of Decision: 01.04.2025 MANJULA BHARDWAJ ....Applicant

Versus

SHRESHTH CHAUDHARY .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Shoryaveer Vashisht, Advocate for the respondent.

***** ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral) The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. DMC/681/2024, titled 'Shreshth Chaudhary Vs. Manjula Bhardwaj', filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court, Patiala and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kharar, District SAS Nagar.

Upon notice issued, the respondent made appearance through counsel and filed reply.

Learned counsel for the parties heard.

At the very outset, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 11.06.2020. One daughter was born from the said wedlock on 24.02.2024, who is in the care and custody of the applicant. However, on account of

matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separate. Earlier, the applicant, as well as the respondent were residing together in District SAS Nagar, as they both are working in the Bank. The respondent has filed the divorce petition, at his parental place i.e. Patiala, even though, he is posted at State Bank of India, Branch Jubbal, District Shimla. Even, the applicant is stated to be posted in the Punjab National Bank, Branch Phase-11, SAS Nagar. Considering the job exigencies, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant to commute to Patiala, which is at a distance of about 65 kilometres, more particularly, while taking care of the minor child.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the contents of the reply filed, submits that since the applicant is also working, it shall not be difficult for her to commute, to pursue the divorce petition, at Patiala, more particularly, when her presence is not required on each and every date of hearing, in the civil matter. In view of the rival submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that both the applicant, as well as the respondent are bank officials. The applicant is working in Punjab National Bank, Branch Phase-11, SAS Nagar and the respondent is working in State Bank of India, Branch Jubbal, District Shimla. The applicant has filed the divorce petition at Patiala, which is far away from Jubbal.

for transfer of the divorce petition to the Courts at SAS Nagar, which is convenient for both the sides, as the applicant herself is posted at SAS Nagar and it shall also further reduce the distance of travel by two hours, in the minimum, if the respondent travels from Jubbal to pursue the divorce petition. The offer so made is willingly accepted by both the counsel and they have stated that they have no objection, if the divorce petition is transferred from Patiala to SAS Nagar.

In view of the aforesaid fact situation and also considering the convenience/inconvenience of both the sides, the transfer application is partly allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. DMC/681/2024, titled 'Shreshth Chaudhary Vs. Manjula Bhardwaj', filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at SAS Nagar. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court, Patiala, to the District and Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar.

Learned District and Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, shall assign the said petition to the Family Court, SAS Nagar. Even, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, SAS Nagar, within a period of one month from today onwards.

(ARCHANA PURI) 01.04.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No