TA No.339 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.339 of 2011 Date of decision : 20.07.2011 Jalwanti ...Applicant Versus Ram Chander ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. As the service upon the respondent could not be effected through the ordinary course, on the last date of hearing, the respondent was ordered to be served through the learned counsel representing him in the trial Court at Rohtak. The summons have been received back with the report that the learned counsel had no instructions from the respondent to receive the notice on his behalf. The respondent was duly represented before the trial Court through his counsel. Keeping in view the previous office report regarding service, the Court is satisfied that the respondent is avoiding service. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. TA No.339 of 2011 2 2. 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 ‘Ram Chander Vs. Jalwanti’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind. 3. The marriage between the parties is more than 13 years old and three children have born out of the wedlock. A perusal of the file would reveal that the applicant is suffering from 55% mental disability, as per the Disability Certificate, Annexure P2, issued by the Civil Surgeon, Rohtak. It has been averred that due to this disability, the applicant is not able to travel to Rohtak, to defend her case, which is at a distance of about 75 kms. from the place of her residence. It is contended that the present petition has been filed at Rohtak, after 13 years of marriage, only with a view to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband. 4. 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.” TA No.339 of 2011 3 5. Considering the fact that the applicant is suffering from mental ailment 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. 6. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Ram Chander Vs. Jalwanti’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Rohtak to the learned District Judge, Jind, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind. 7. The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind, on 19.08.2011. 20.07.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No