KAJAL SIDHI BANSAL vs SUMIT — TA/310/2026

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 06-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010338512026

e-Filing Number

24-02-2026

Filing Number

TA/10966/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

TA/310/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Judge

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Coram

Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Bench Type

Single

Category

35 - TRANSFERS ( 565 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAJAL SIDHI BANSAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUMIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    Case Summary: TA/310/2026 – Kajal Sidhi Bansal v. Sumit Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Kajal's transfer petition, refusing to move her husband Sumit's ongoing divorce case from Rohtak Family Court to Kaithal court. Key Reasoning: While the court acknowledged that wife's convenience deserves consideration in matrimonial disputes, it found no compelling grounds here. The 130-km distance between courts is manageable in approximately two hours, court hearings occur only on fixed dates (not daily), and the applicant presented only general inconvenience claims without demonstrating physical, financial, or medical incapacity. The respondent-husband's Air Force posting in Nagaland and his need to visit aged parents in Rohtak supported keeping jurisdiction at Rohtak. The court also noted a pending FIR against the applicant at Rohtak police station, further supporting that location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. TA/310/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: TA/310/2026 – Kajal Sidhi Bansal v. Sumit Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Kajal's transfer petition, refusing to move her husband Sumit's ongoing divorce case from Rohtak Family Court to Kaithal court. Key Reasoning: While the court acknowledged that wife's convenience deserves consideration in matrimonial disputes, it found no compelling grounds here. The 130-km distance between courts is manageable in approximately two hours, court hearings occur only on fixed dates (not daily), and the applicant presented only general inconvenience claims without demonstrating physical, financial, or medical incapacity. The respondent-husband's Air Force posting in Nagaland and his need to visit aged parents in Rohtak supported keeping jurisdiction at Rohtak. The court also noted a pending FIR against the applicant at Rohtak police station, further supporting that location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case