Pooja Rani v. Gaurav Kapoor

Mr. Dipanshu Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Dipanshu Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Dipanshu Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. NIDHI GUPTA, J. 2026 CM-7260-CII-2026 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner. the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and Reply is taken Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and Reply is taken Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and Reply is taken Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions and Reply is taken on record. TA-252-2025 wife is for transfer of the Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer of the Prayer in this petition filed by petition Prayer in this petition filed by petition husband under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of husband under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of petition filed by the respondent the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) for declaring the the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) for declaring the the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) for declaring the the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) for declaring the titled as “Gaurav Kapoor marriage of the petitioner and respondent as null and void titled as “Gaurav Kapoor marriage of the petitioner and respondent as null and void marriage of the petitioner and respondent as null and void 1) pending before Vs. Pooja Rani” bearing case No.HMA/576/2024 (Annexure P-1) pending before Vs. Pooja Rani” bearing case No.HMA/576/2024 (Annexure P Vs. Pooja Rani” bearing case No.HMA/576/2024 (Annexure P to the Court of competent Principal Judge, Family Court Panchkula to the Court of competent Principal Judge, Family Court Panchkula the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court Panchkula jurisdiction at Tarn Taran at Tarn Taran. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) TA-252-2025 (O&M) -2-

2. as married to the Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner w Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner w respondent on 24.02.2023. No child is born out of their wedlock. Parties are respondent on 24.02.2023. No child is born out of their wedlock. Parties are respondent on 24.02.2023. No child is born out of their wedlock. Parties are respondent on 24.02.2023. No child is born out of their wedlock. Parties are residing separately since February 2024 due to matrimonial discord. residing separately since February 2024 due to matrimonial discord. residing separately since February 2024 due to matrimonial discord.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above- Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks transfer of the above husband under Section 11 of the Hindu mentioned petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 of the Hindu husband under Section 11 of the Hindu mentioned petition file Marriage Act, from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent Marriage Act, from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent Marriage Act, from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent Marriage Act, from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran on account of the following reasons:- jurisdiction at Tarn Taran on account of the following reasons: jurisdiction at Tarn Taran on account of the following reasons: i) That the petitioner is unemployed, therefore, the petiti oner does hat the petitioner is unemployed, therefore, the petitioner does not have the means to travel the distance of about 245 kms one way not have the means to travel the distance of about 245 kms one way not have the means to travel the distance of about 245 kms one way not have the means to travel the distance of about 245 kms one way from Tarn Taran to Panchkula; from Tarn Taran to Panchkula; ii) hat the petitioner also faces threat to her life and liberty if she That the petitioner also faces threat to her life and liberty if she hat the petitioner also faces threat to her life and liberty if she enters Panchkula; wed and the It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allowed and the It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allo It is accordingly, prayed that present petition be allo 1 be mentioned petition filed under Section 11 of HMA Annexure P-1 be mentioned petition filed under Section 11 of HMA Annexure P afore-mentioned petition filed under Section 11 of HMA Annexure P transferred from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent transferred from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent transferred from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent transferred from the Family Court, Panchkula to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran. jurisdiction at Tarn Taran.

4. Per contra, Ld counsel for the respondent Per contra, husband vehemently Ld counsel for the respondent-husband vehemently opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the opposes submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present transfer petition is not maintainable as at the time of her marriage to the present transfer petition is not maintainable as at the time of her marriage to the present transfer petition is not maintainable as at the time of her marriage to the present transfer petition is not maintainable as at the time of her marriage to the respondent, petitioner had failed to disclose respondent, petitioner had failed to disclose to the respondent that she was to the respondent that she was previously married and that she had no valid legal separation or divorce from her previously married and that she had no valid legal separation or divorce from her previously married and that she had no valid legal separation or divorce from her previously married and that she had no valid legal separation or divorce from her previous husband. It is submitted that therefore, petitioner had married the previous husband. It is submitted that therefore, petitioner had married the previous husband. It is submitted that therefore, petitioner had married the previous husband. It is submitted that therefore, petitioner had married the hich respondent respondent under a false pretext and impression, as a result of which respondent respondent under a false pretext and impression, as a result of w respondent under a false pretext and impression, as a result of w has sought annulment of his marriage to the petitioner; which in any event, is not has sought annulment of his marriage to the petitioner; which in any event, is not has sought annulment of his marriage to the petitioner; which in any event, is not has sought annulment of his marriage to the petitioner; which in any event, is not legal, as petitioner is not legally divorced. It is submitted that the petitioner has legal, as petitioner is not legally divorced. It is submitted that the petitioner has legal, as petitioner is not legally divorced. It is submitted that the petitioner has legal, as petitioner is not legally divorced. It is submitted that the petitioner has TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) TA-252-2025 (O&M) -3- of which only taken a Panchayati divorce from her previous husband, the legality of which only taken a Panchayati divorce from her previous husband, the legality only taken a Panchayati divorce from her previous husband, the legality has been struck down by this Court; and therefore, the previous marriage of the has been struck down by this Court; and therefore, the previous marriage of the has been struck down by this Court; and therefore, the previous marriage of the has been struck down by this Court; and therefore, the previous marriage of the petitioner cannot be stated to have been dissolved. petitioner cannot be stated to have been dissolved. petitioner cannot be stated to have been dissolved.

5. It is further pointed out that as stated by the respondent in his reply It is further pointed out that as stated by the respondent in his reply It is further pointed out that as stated by the respondent in his reply It is further pointed out that as stated by the respondent in his reply rh and working at Chandigarh, Railway the petitioner is residing in Chandigarh and working at Chandigarh, Railway rh and working at Chandigarh, Railway the petitioner is residing in Chandiga Station.

6. filed by It is also pointed out that in her rejoinder dated 22.04.2026 filed by It is also pointed out that in her rejoinder dated 22.04.202 It is also pointed out that in her rejoinder dated 22.04.202 the petitioner to the reply of the respondent, petitioner has not specifically denied the petitioner to the reply of the respondent, petitioner has not specifically denied the petitioner to the reply of the respondent, petitioner has not specifically denied the petitioner to the reply of the respondent, petitioner has not specifically denied . It is contended that therefore that she is residing and working in Chandigarh. It is contended that therefore that she is residing and working in Chandigarh that she is residing and working in Chandigarh petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court, on this short ground alone petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court the present deserves to be dismissed. the present deserves to be dismissed.

7. No other argument is raised on No other argument is raised behalf of learned counsel for the behalf of learned counsel for the ounsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no ounsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no parties. I have heard learned c merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

8. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent to the present transfer A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent to the present transfer A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent to the present transfer A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent to the present transfer erein regarding the petition shows that the respondent has specifically mentioned therein regarding the petition shows that the respondent has specifically mentioned th petition shows that the respondent has specifically mentioned th previous marriage and Panchayati divorce dated 02.07.2021 obtained by the previous marriage and Panchayati divorce dated 02.07.2021 obtained by the previous marriage and Panchayati divorce dated 02.07.2021 obtained by the previous marriage and Panchayati divorce dated 02.07.2021 obtained by the petitioner from her previous Husband. The said facts have not been denied by the petitioner from her previous Husband. The said facts have not been denied by the petitioner from her previous Husband. The said facts have not been denied by the petitioner from her previous Husband. The said facts have not been denied by the petitioner in her rejoinder. Even in respect of her employment at Chandigarh, petitioner in her rejoinder. Even in respect of her employment at Chandigarh, petitioner in her rejoinder. Even in respect of her employment at Chandigarh, petitioner in her rejoinder. Even in respect of her employment at Chandigarh, railway station, the petitioner has stated that ‘ mere fact that the petitioner may be lway station, the petitioner has stated that ‘mere fact that the petitioner may be mere fact that the petitioner may be working at Chandigarh Railway Station (if at all) does not dilute the genuine working at Chandigarh Railway Station (if at all) does not dilute the genuine working at Chandigarh Railway Station (if at all) does not dilute the genuine working at Chandigarh Railway Station (if at all) does not dilute the genuine .” Clearly, therefore, petitioner has not grounds taken in the Transfer Application.” Clearly, therefore, petitioner has not .” Clearly, therefore, petitioner has not grounds taken in the Transfer Application denied her residence and/or employment at Chandigarh Railway specifically denied her residence and/or employment at Chandigarh Railway denied her residence and/or employment at Chandigarh Railway denied her residence and/or employment at Chandigarh Railway Station. As such, petitioner has not made out any hardship in attending to the Station. As such, petitioner has not made out any hardship in attending to the Station. As such, petitioner has not made out any hardship in attending to the Station. As such, petitioner has not made out any hardship in attending to the proceedings before the Family Court at Panchkula. proceedings before the Family Court at Panchkula. proceedings before the Family Court at Panchkula. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.22 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 (O&M) TA-252-2025 (O&M) -4-

9. on the Even otherwise, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the Even otherwise, the present petition deserves to be dismissed Even otherwise, the present petition deserves to be dismissed short ground that petitioner has concealed the above said material facts from this short ground that petitioner has concealed the above said material facts from this short ground that petitioner has concealed the above said material facts from this short ground that petitioner has concealed the above said material facts from this Court. In this situation, reference may be made to judgment of this Court in Swati Court. In this situation, reference may be made to judgment of this Court in Court. In this situation, reference may be made to judgment of this Court in Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2126995, wherein it is held that: erein it is held that:- “Transfer application seeking transfer of matrimonial case dismissed “Transfer application seeking transfer of matrimonial case dismissed “Transfer application seeking transfer of matrimonial case dismissed “Transfer application seeking transfer of matrimonial case dismissed due to concealment of material facts and misstatements made by the due to concealment of material facts and misstatements made by the due to concealment of material facts and misstatements made by the due to concealment of material facts and misstatements made by the petitioner-wife. petitioner Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 Transfer application - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 Transfer application Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 Transfer application Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 Transfer application Petitioner-wife seeking Petitioner transfer of matrimonial case transfer of matrimonial case transfer of matrimonial case filed by filed by filed by Earlier transfer application dismissed on merits respondent-husband - Earlier transfer application dismissed on merits Earlier transfer application dismissed on merits respondent Review application also due to concealment of material facts - Review application also due to concealment of material facts due to concealment of material facts Present transfer application dismissed as dismissed as withdrawn - Present transfer application dismissed as Present transfer application dismissed as dismissed as withdrawn nd to be habitual in making misstatements and petitioner found to be habitual in making misstatements and nd to be habitual in making misstatements and petitioner fou misleading the Court.” misleading the Court.”

10. Same view has been taken by this Court in Sheveta @ Sheveta Same view has been taken by this Court in Same view has been taken by this Court in Sheveta @ Sheveta Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2726492; Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2726492; Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2726492; Sehgal v. Anuj Puri, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2726492; Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Swati Pathania v. Ritesh Pangasa, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2027329; and Richa Nagpal v. Tarun Nagpal, (Punjab And Haryana) : Richa Nagpal v. Tarun Nagpal, (Punjab And Haryana) : Richa Nagpal v. Tarun Nagpal, (Punjab And Haryana) : ID # 2027329; Law Finder Doc ID # 2291311. Law Finder Doc ID # 22

11. This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases This Court is also well aware that the preponderance of law in cases 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, of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of the wife. However, 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 in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as in certain cases similar to the present one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have rt have declined relief to the wife. One such case is: