##PAGE1##

TA-1102-2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

145 TA-1102-2025

Date of Decision: 18.05.2026

Seema Rani .…Petitioner

Versus

Naveen Kumar .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. RS Kadian, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner-wife is

seeking transfer of petition filed by respondent-husband under Sections

12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) bearing

No. HMA/314/2025 (Annexure P-2) titled as ‘Naveen Kumar vs. Seema

Rani’ pending before the learned Family Court, Kurukshetra to a Court

of competent jurisdiction i.e. Family Court at Sirsa.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that:-

i) The parties were married on 23.04.2024 as per Hindu

Rites and Ceremonies.

ii) No child was born out of the said wedlock.

iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are living

separately since 09.12.2024.

iv) The petitioner has no source of income and is fully

dependent upon her parents.

v) There are 05 cases filed by the petitioner pending

adjudication before the Courts at Sirsa details of

which are as under:-

RISHU KATARIA

2026.05.21 09:11

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment.

TA-1102-2025 -2-

(a) Case No. CHI/641/2025 arising out of FIR No.

43 dated 30.04.2025 registered under Sections

323, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC before the Court

of CJM, Sirsa (Annexure P-4).

(b) Case No. CRM/236/2026 pending before the

CJM, Sirsa (Annexure P-5).

(c) Case No. COMA/94/2025 filed under Sections

12, 17 to 20, 22 and 23 of the the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(Annexure P-6).

(d) Case No. MNT125/236/2025 under Section

125 Cr.P.C. pending before the learned Family

Court, Sirsa (Annexure P-7).

(e) Case No. HMA/952/2025 under Section of the

Act before the learned Family Court, Sirsa

(Annexure P-8).

vi) The distance between the place of residence of the

petitioner at Sirsa and place of proceedings at

Kurukshetra is about 215 kilometers on one side. As

such, it is difficult for her to undertake frequent travel

for the case from Sirsa to Kurukshetra.

3. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be

allowed and petition bearing No. HMA/314/2025 (Annexure P-2) titled as

‘Naveen Kumar vs. Seema Rani’ pending before the learned Family

Court, Kurukshetra to a Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Family Court

at Sirsa.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently

opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner

and submits that the petitioner has medically terminated 04 months

pregnancy without informing the respondent, in respect of which the

respondent-husband had submitted a complaint before the Civil Surgeon,

RISHU KATARIA

2026.05.21 09:11

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment.

TA-1102-2025 -3-

Sirsa pursuant to which the respondent had been summoned vide letter

dated 15.07.2025, which reads as under:-

“Sender:

Civil Surgeon, Sirsa,

Recipient:

Naveen Kumar S/o Ram Diya

r/o Didar Nagar, Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

Letter No. MTP/2025/190 Dated:15/07/2025

Subject: Regarding inquiry into foeticide.

With reference to this office letter No. PNDT/2025/MTP/157

dated 23.06.2025, the subject mentioned above is being

written to you in continuation. A complaint submitted by you

was received at the office of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa. You are

hereby given another opportunity to record your statement

and assist in the investigating regarding this matter. Thus,

you are directed to be present at the office of Civil Surgeon,

Sirsa on Monday, 21.07.2025 at 2:30 PM. If you have any

other relevant documents pertaining to this matter, you are

requested to bring those along as well.

Sd/-15/7/2025

Civil Surgeon, Sirsa.”

5. Further, learned counsel for the respondent-husband submits

that all the jewellery has been returned to the petitioner. However, learned

counsel admits that respondent is putting in appearance in 03 cas