T.A. No. 247 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No. 247 of 2008 Date of decision : 17.2.2009 Sunita Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present : Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the respondent. [ENTITY], J.
This is a petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for transfer of the proceedings initiated by the respondent under [SECTION] of the [ACT], titled as '[ENTITY] v. Sunita', in the Court of Additional District Judge, Narnaul to Faridabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent which somehow did not work out, as a result of which proceedings filed by the respondent-husband under [SECTION] of the [ACT] are pending at Narnaul. It is contended that the petitioner has no independent source of income and is residing with her parents at village Bedha, District Faridabad which is about 160 Kilometers from Narnaul. Reliance is also placed on [PRECEDENT] wherein this Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], in which the following observations were made :-
"We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is lady and first respondent is a male, and, therefore, (for) convenience of wife, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No special reason is shown."
The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has controverted the grounds taken by the petitioner for transfer of the proceedings pending at Narnaul. However, no special reason has been shown not to transfer the proceedings.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the observations of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], the petition is allowed and the proceedings under [SECTION] of the [ACT] are transferred from Narnaul to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridabad, which shall issue notice to both the parties on receipt of the case.
17.2.2009 ([ENTITY]) JUDGE dss