TA No.175 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.175 of 2011 Date of decision : 05.05.2011 Subhash Rani ...Applicant Versus Rakesh Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Jasjit Singh, 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 ‘Rakesh Kumar Vs. Subhash 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 (Sr. Divn.), Balachaur (S.B.S. Nagar), to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that proceedings in FIR No.87 dated 17.5.2009 under Section 406, 498-A IPC, petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and petition under Section 12 of the TA No.175 of 2011 2 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are pending against the respondent at Rupnagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Distt. Rupnagar and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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. Mrs. Subhash Rani, the applicant-wife, is residing at Distt. Rupnagar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balachaur. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor daughter, to attend the court proceedings at Balachaur. TA No.175 of 2011 3 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Distt. Rupnagar 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. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Rakesh Kumar Vs. Subhash Rani’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balachaur, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Balachaur to the learned District Judge, Rupnagar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Rupnagar, on 04.06.2011. 5.5..2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No