TA No.358 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.358 of 2011 Date of decision : 10.08.2011 Anita Rani ...Applicant Versus Subash Chander ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.D. Bansal, 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 ‘Subash Chander Vs. Anita Rani’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short `the Act') from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Bathinda, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rampura Phul. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending adjudication before the Court at Rampura Phul. TA No.358 of 2011 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Rampura Phul, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 6. 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.” 7. The applicant-wife is residing at Rampura Phul, after having been ousted from the matrimonial home. The respondent- husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned trial Court at Bathinda. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor daughter and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Bathinda. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Rampura Phul, and primarily, the convenience of the wife in a petition TA No.358 of 2011 3 filed by the husband, is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Subash Chander Vs. Anita Rani’ is withdrawn from the trial Court at Bathinda and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rampura Phul. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court, Bathinda, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rampura Phul, within three weeks. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rampura Phul, on 03.09.2011. 10.08.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No