VIJAY LAKSHMI vs RAMAN KUMAR SHARMA — TA/1428/2025

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 02-Dec-2025

CNR: PHHC011772832025

e-Filing Number

01-11-2025

Filing Number

TA/69140/2025

Filing Date

01-Nov-2025

Registration No

TA/1428/2025

Registration Date

03-Nov-2025

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

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VIJAY LAKSHMI

    Adv. PARDEEP BAJAJ

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMAN KUMAR SHARMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    Summary of TA/1428/2025 (Vijay Lakshmi v. Raman Kumar Sharma) Justice Nidhi Gupta dismissed Vijay Lakshmi's transfer application seeking to move her husband's divorce petition from Ferozepur Family Court to Faridkot. While acknowledging jurisprudential favor toward wives in matrimonial transfers, the court found her circumstances insufficient: she claimed unemployment and hardship, but the court noted the respondent husband is employed, single-handedly supports two children, and the 36-kilometer distance represents only a one-hour journey required only on hearing dates. The court found no compelling extenuating circumstances warranting transfer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. TA/1428/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of TA/1428/2025 (Vijay Lakshmi v. Raman Kumar Sharma) Justice Nidhi Gupta dismissed Vijay Lakshmi's transfer application seeking to move her husband's divorce petition from Ferozepur Family Court to Faridkot. While acknowledging jurisprudential favor toward wives in matrimonial transfers, the court found her circumstances insufficient: she claimed unemployment and hardship, but the court noted the respondent husband is employed, single-handedly supports two children, and the 36-kilometer distance represents only a one-hour journey required only on hearing dates. The court found no compelling extenuating circumstances warranting transfer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case