Transfer Application No. 254 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No. 254 of 2010 Date of decision:2nd December, 2010 Babita Rani wife of Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Shri Om Pal, D/o Paala Ram, r/o M.E.S. Colony Gate No. 5, Nawan Kila Road, Faridkot. .......Applicant Versus Raj Kumar @ Raju aged 35 years, son of Shri Om Pal, r/o 8784, New Vijay Nagar, Gali No. 1, Chuharpur Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana. ........Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Suresh Pal, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The application for transfer of the proceeding pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Ludhiana to the competent Civil Court at Faridkot is sought on the ground that she is residing with her father in Faridkot and she has five year old child to attend and it is very difficult and inconvenient to go to Ludhiana which is about 130 kilometres away to conduct the case. Learned counsel Transfer Application No. 254 of 2010 2 refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another AIR 2002 Supreme Court 396 and another decision of this Court in Ajinder Kaur vs. Tara Singh in Transfer Application No. 128 of 2010 where opportunities afforded on the ground of the convenience of parties are relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh's case(supra) was dealing with the situation with inter state transfer where the distance was more than 1000 kilo metres. In Ajinder Kaur's case(supra), this Court had made an order of transfer not merely on the ground of distance but had also on account of the fact that there were other proceedings pending between the same parties elsewhere and the conduct of the cases together in one place was found to be relevant. 2. We will have to re write the law, if convenience always be taken to be the ground for institution of cases. Courts cannot be at the door step of a litigant. If there is any inconvenience in having to travel 130 kilo metres in these days of public transport, then we should have situations where all matrimonial proceedings could be instituted only in the place, where a litigant dictates as convenient for prosecuting their litigation. 3. While dismissing the petition, I will observe that it is open to the wife to apply to the Court where the proceedings are pending for provision for transport expenses for every effective date of hearing and the Court shall have due regard to the provision for expenses not merely for the party but also to the escort and the mode of transport Transfer Application No. 254 of 2010 3 and the likely expenses for the same. It shall be independent of any other claim that could be prosecuted through the wife claiming interim maintenance in the proceedings. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 2nd December, 2010 Shivani Kaushik