TA No.37 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6515-CII of 2011 in/and TA No.37 of 2011 Date of decision : 10.03.2011 Neetu ...Applicant Versus Shivraj Sareen ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been moved by the wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition titled as ‘Shivraj Sareen Vs. Neetu’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ferozepur. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Admittedly, the wife is residing with her parents at Ferozepur. She is also maintaining the child born out of the wedlock TA No.37 of 2011 2 between the parties. 4. By way of CM No.6515-CII of 2011, reply on behalf of the respondent has been filed, which is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. From the perusal of the reply so filed, it is apparent that the petition under Section 13 of the Act is at the stage of recording evidence of the father of the respondent, who is at the terminal stage, as per the report (Annexure R-2). Furthermore, Annexures R1 to R4 would reveal that a number of complaints filed by the applicant were found to be false. 5. Without adverting to the merits of the case in hand and keeping in view the health of the father of the respondent, who is to be examined in the proceedings before the trial Court, I feel the ends of justice would be met in case the present application is dismissed. However, the respondent shall bear the cost of travelling of the applicant on each date from Ferozepur to Jalandhar, which is quantified to ` 1,000/- per visit. 10.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No