DHAN SHYAM ALIAS GHANSHYAM DASS vs NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER — TA/1109/2025

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

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. 1.DHAN SHYAM ALIAS GHANSHYAM DASS

    Adv. J.C. KAPOOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 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.

  3. 18-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. TA/1109/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case