ALKA vs MUKESH — TA/1671/2025

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 22-Dec-2025

CNR: PHHC012050542025

e-Filing Number

15-12-2025

Filing Number

TA/79962/2025

Filing Date

15-Dec-2025

Registration No

TA/1671/2025

Registration Date

15-Dec-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

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ALKA

    Adv. VIKAS BAIRAGI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MUKESH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Ms. Justice Nidhi GuptaView PDF

    Case Summary: TA/1671/2025 Alka v. Mukesh — High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Justice Nidhi Gupta, 14.05.2026) Alka sought transfer of her husband Mukesh's matrimonial petition (DMC/165/2025) from Family Court Sonepat to Rohtak, citing travel hardship (52 km distance) and a related maintenance case pending at Rohtak. The court dismissed her petition, finding the respondent bears greater responsibility as the sole earning member caring for their minor son, while Alka has no independent income and lives with her parents. The court held mere pendency of another case at Rohtak insufficient grounds for transfer and cited precedent favoring the respondent's position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. TA/1671/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: TA/1671/2025 Alka v. Mukesh — High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Justice Nidhi Gupta, 14.05.2026) Alka sought transfer of her husband Mukesh's matrimonial petition (DMC/165/2025) from Family Court Sonepat to Rohtak, citing travel hardship (52 km distance) and a related maintenance case pending at Rohtak. The court dismissed her petition, finding the respondent bears greater responsibility as the sole earning member caring for their minor son, while Alka has no independent income and lives with her parents. The court held mere pendency of another case at Rohtak insufficient grounds for transfer and cited precedent favoring the respondent's position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case