TA No.164 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.164 of 2010 Date of decision : 26.07.2011 Piyush Kumari ...Applicant Versus Manoj Kumar Mangla ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Kharab, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant- wife, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition, titled as ‘Manoj Kumar Mangla Vs. Piyush Kumari’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short `the Act') from the Court of learned trial Court, Panipat, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that both the parties being Polio afflicted, are handicapped. The applicant is in Government Service and working as Clerk at Chandigarh. It is very difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings at Panipat, which is at a TA No.164 of 2010 2 distance of about 200 kms. from the place of her residence. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. Although, the respondent-husband is also a Polio-afflicted person, yet he being self-employed, no prejudice would be caused to him in case the prayer is allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC), has observed as under:- “We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a 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 reason not to do so. No special reason is shown.” 6. Smt. Piyush Kumari, the applicant-wife, is residing at Dera Bassi, Distt. Mohali, and working at Chandigarh. The respondent- husband is self-employed. He filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned trial Court, Panipat. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, who is in Government service, to attend the court proceedings at Panipat, which is at a distance of about TA No.164 of 2010 3 200 kms. from the place of her residence. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Dera Bassi, Distt. Mohali, working at Chandigarh, and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act, titled as ‘Manoj Kumar Mangla Vs. Piyush Kumari’ is withdrawn from the learned trial Court at Panipat, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be transferred by the trial Court at Panipat, to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 9. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, on 27.08.2011. 26.07.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No