Gagandeep Kaur v. Rajvir Singh Dhillon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.210 Date of Decision: 23.12.2025 GAGANDEEP KAUR ....Applicant

Versus

RAJVIR SINGH DHILLON .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Mr. C.K. Jangra, Advocate for the applicant.

None for the respondent.

***** ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral) As per the observations made in the previous order, despite service, the respondent did not make appearance on that date. Even today, he has not made appearance. As such, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

Counsel for the applicant heard.

The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. HMA/86/2024, titled 'Rajvir Singh Dhillon Vs. Gagandeep Kaur', filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court (Camp Court)

Samrala, District Ludhiana and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rajpura, District Patiala. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 13.11.2019. However, on account of the matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separate. The applicant has filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Courts at Rajpura, the mention whereof has been made in the application. However, in the said petition, the respondent did not make appearance subsequently and as such, has been proceeded against ex parte. The applicant is not having any source of earning. The distance between the two stations is stated to be 75 kms.

On query by this Court, it is submitted that no child was born from the said wedlock.

Considering the submissions aforesaid, more particularly, the fact about the applicant not having any source of earning and taking into consideration the fact of respondent having proceeded against ex parte, in the maintenance petition, which is pending in the Courts at Rajpura, as stated by the counsel today and above it, considering the fact about the respondent having not come forward to resist the application, the transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. HMA/86/2024, titled 'Rajvir Singh Dhillon Vs. Gagandeep Kaur', filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court (Camp Court) Samrala, District Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rajpura, District Patiala. The requisite record of the aforesaid

case be sent by the Family Court (Camp Court) Samrala, to the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala.

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

(ARCHANA PURI) 23.12.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Vats Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No