Suraj Gupta v. Geetanjali
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
forward to resist the application, the transfer application is allowed and the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Present:- Mr. Yashveer Kharb, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 04.09.2025. ***** 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. HMA/234/2024, titled ‘Suraj Gupta Vs. Geetanjali’, filed by the respondent- husband, pending in the Family Court (Camp Court) Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind. Upon notice issued, the respondent did not make appearance, despite service and as such, was proceeded against ex parte. 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 08.12.2015. Two daughters born from the said wedlock, who are in the age group of 3-8 years, are in the care and custody of the applicant.
Operative part
On account of the matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separate. The applicant is not having any source of Sonu 2025.09.25 15:52 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC TA-881-2025 2 earning. She has filed the petition for seeking maintenance i.e. MNT- 125/333/2023, as well as the petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act i.e. COMA/187/2023, which are pending in the Courts at Jind and the respondent is making appearance in the same. Furthermore, the respondent is facing trial in the Courts at Jind, relating to FIR bearing No.11 of 2024, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC, got lodged by the applicant at Women Police Station, Jind. The distance between the two places is stated to be about 110 kilometres. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances and more particularly, considering the fact about the respondent having not come forward to resist the application, the transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e.
HMA/234/2024, titled ‘Suraj Gupta Vs. Geetanjali’, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court (Camp Court) Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court (Camp Court) Bahadurgarh, to the District and Sessions Judge, Jind. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Jind, shall assign the said petition to the Family Court, Jind. Even, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Jind, within a period of one month from today onwards.
24.09.2025 Himanshu Vats Sonu 2025.09.25 15:52 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC (ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes Yes/No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: forward to resist the application, the transfer application is allowed and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 24 Sep 2025. The bench was ARCHANA PURI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.