Malti Rani @ Malti v. Amit Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.115 TA-1524-2024 Date of Decision: 19.03.2025  



  

....Applicant

Versus

   

.....Respondent

CORAM:

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

None for the respondent.

***** ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral) As per the order dated 11.02.2025, despite service, the respondent did not make appearance on that date. Even on the subsequent date, none had made appearance on his behalf. Today also, none has made appearance on behalf of the respondent. As such, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

The counsel for the applicant heard.

 

 

    

             

  !! !"#   


  $%  

$ #    &'%  #(      '          ' 

 )     * #   

 

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 17.02.2016. Two children born from the said wedlock, are in the care and custody of the applicant. On account of the matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separate. The applicant, as well as the respondent, lastly resided together in Rohtak. The divorce petition was filed by the respondent at Rohtak, even though, he is working at Gurugram and is resident of Rewari. The applicant had also filed a complaint in Women Police Station, Narnaul, on the basis whereof, FIR was registered, relating to which challan has since been presented. The counsel for the applicant has placed on record the copy of the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by learned Trial Court, during the course of trial.

Also further, it is submitted that the applicant is not working and as such, has no source of earning. Even, she has filed the maintenance petition i.e. MNT125/86/2024, which is pending in the Courts at Narnaul. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant to commute a distance of about 120 kilometres, to defend the divorce petition, filed by the respondent.

In view of the submissions aforesaid, considering the position of law about preference to be given to the convenience of the wife in the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial dispute, more particularly, considering the distance between the place where the divorce petition is pending and where it is sought to be transferred, taking into consideration the fact about two minor children to be in the care and custody of the applicant, who is not having any source of earning and also considering the fact about the respondent not having come forward to resist the application,

 the transfer application is allowed and                !! !"#  


  $%     

$ #        '    &'%   # ( #     ' 

)   *   
+     $

$% &'%  #( #  

    ,#* 

-      ,#* #        &'%  #*  ./ #     $ &'%  #* #    '

'

%



(ARCHANA PURI) 19.03.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No