##PAGE1##

Transfer Application No.1424 of 2024 (O & M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

145

Transfer Application No.1424 of 2024 (O & M)

Date of decision :-21.05.2026

Dr. Ruchika Kumari

…..Applicant

Versus

Dr. Ashutosh Kayasth

…..Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate

for the applicant.

Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate

for the respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The present transfer application has been filed by the applicant-wife

seeking transfer of the petition instituted by the respondent-husband

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the

Act”), bearing No. HMA/734/2024 titled as “Dr. Ashutosh Kayasth

vs. Ruchika Kumari” (Annexure P-1), presently pending before the

learned Family Court, Sirsa, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at

Ambala.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has,

inter alia, contended as under:-

i) That the marriage between the parties was

solemnized on 25.04.2021 according to Hindu

rites and ceremonies.

VIJAY ASIJA

2026.05.25 20.48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Transfer Application No.1424 of 2024 (O & M) 2

ii) That a female child was born out of the wedlock

on 23.03.2022, who is suffering from Autism

Spectrum Disorder and is presently in the care

and custody of the applicant’s parents at Ambala.

It is submitted that the applicant, despite being

posted at Rohtak, frequently travels to Ambala to

look after the child and attend to her special

needs.

iii) That owing to matrimonial discord, the applicant-

wife is living separately from the respondent-

husband.

iv) That the applicant is presently serving as

Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery

at PGIMS, Rohtak, whereas the respondent is

posted as a Medical Specialist at CHC,

Dharchula, District Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. It is

submitted that the respondent had been

pressurizing the applicant to either resign from

her employment and shift to Pithoragarh or reside

at Sirsa with his family members. It is further

submitted that the respondent is not paying any

maintenance either to the applicant or to the

minor daughter.

v) That proceedings arising out of the following

petitions instituted by the applicant-wife are

already pending before the competent Courts at

Ambala:-

(a) A petition under Section 144 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

(BNSS), bearing No.

MNT/125/4564/2024 filed on

19.09.2024; and

(b) A maintenance petition bearing No.

MNT/125/341/2024

VIJAY ASIJA

2026.05.25 20.48

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Transfer Application No.1424 of 2024 (O & M) 3

vi) That the distance between Ambala, where the

applicant and the minor child are residing, and

Sirsa, where the petition under Section 9 of the

Act is pending, is approximately 241 kilometres

one way.

vii) That owing to the applicant’s employment at

Rohtak and the medical condition of the minor

child, she is already constrained to travel

frequently between Rohtak and Ambala and,

therefore, it would cause considerable hardship to

attend proceedings at Sirsa.

3. On the aforesaid grounds, the applicant prays for transfer

of the petition, as detailed in paragraph No. 1 above.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the

applicant. It is contended that the applicant is a regular Government

employee serving as Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery

at PGIMS, Rohtak and is financially independent.

It is further submitted that the minor daughter is not

residing with the applicant at Rohtak but with the applicant’s parents

at Ambala. Learned counsel has drawn attention to paragraph 17(iii)

of the transfer application to contend that, as per the applicant’s own

averments, she frequently travels from Rohtak to Ambala to visit the

child and, therefore, there should be no impediment for her to travel to

Sirsa to attend the Court proceedings.

However, upon a Court query, learned counsel for the

respondent fairly submits that he has no in