Aarti Srivastav v. Puneet Srivastav

TA-1334-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.235 TA-1334-2025 Date of Decision: 22.12.2025 AARTI SRIVASTAV ....Applicant

Versus

PUNEET SRIVASTAV .....Respondent

CORAM:

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

None for the respondent.

***** ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral) As observed in the previous order, despite service, the respondent did not make appearance, on that date. Even today, he has not made appearance. As such, 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 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. HMA/941/2024, titled 'Puneet Srivastav v/s Aarti Srivastav', filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Family Court, Ambala and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 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 25.11.2020. On account of matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separate. The applicant is a trainee advocate, practising at Chandigarh. She is Sonu 2025.12.23 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

TA-1334-2025 not having any sufficient means, to pursue the litigation. In the given circumstances, she has filed the present application for transfer of the divorce petition.

While considering the transfer applications, relating to the matrimonial disputes, the courts generally give preference to the convenience of the wife, but however, this is not the sole factor, which ought to be taken into consideration. Various other circumstances, spelt out from the material brought on record, ought to be taken into consideration. In the case in hand, on query by the court, it is stated that there is no child born from the estranged marriage.

Considering the aforesaid and also taking into consideration the very fact of the applicant being an Advocate and also the distance between the two places, where the petition is pending and where it is sought to be transferred, is less than 50 kms and has good means of road and rail connectivity, no case is made out for acceptance of the transfer application. Hence, the transfer application is hereby dismissed. (ARCHANA PURI) 22.12.2025 JUDGE Sonu Saini Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No Sonu 2025.12.23 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document