DHAN SHYAM ALIAS GHANSHYAM DASS vs NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER — TA/1109/2025
Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC011314612025
e-Filing Number
17-08-2025
Filing Number
TA/51248/2025
Filing Date
18-Aug-2025
Registration No
TA/1109/2025
Registration Date
28-Aug-2025
Judge
Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
Coram
Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
Category
35 - TRANSFERS ( 565 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I
Decision Date
14-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DHAN SHYAM ALIAS GHANSHYAM DASS
Adv. J.C. KAPOOR
Respondent(s)
-
1.NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-May-2026
Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF
Note: The case number in the document is TA-1671-2025, not TA/1109/2025 as stated in your header. Based on the actual judgment: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the wife's petition seeking transfer of a Hindu Marriage Act Section 13 divorce case from Sonepat Family Court to Rohtak. The court found no equitable grounds for transfer, reasoning that the wife has no dependent responsibilities and lives with supportive parents, while the respondent-husband single-handedly supports their minor child and earns the family income. The court held that mere distance and pendency of a maintenance case at another location were insufficient grounds for transfer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. TA/1109/2025
Note: The case number in the document is TA-1671-2025, not TA/1109/2025 as stated in your header. Based on the actual judgment: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the wife's petition seeking transfer of a Hindu Marriage Act Section 13 divorce case from Sonepat Family Court to Rohtak. The court found no equitable grounds for transfer, reasoning that the wife has no dependent responsibilities and lives with supportive parents, while the respondent-husband single-handedly supports their minor child and earns the family income. The court held that mere distance and pendency of a maintenance case at another location were insufficient grounds for transfer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts