IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No. 200 of 2008 Date of Order: 29.08.2008 Sonia ...Appellant Versus Mohit Arya ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. J.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act titled as "Mohit Arya v. Sonia” pending in the Court of Shri Bhupinder Singh Sidhu, Additional District Judge, Patiala, to any court of a competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was turned out of a matrimonial home on 11.12.2007. The respondent-husband thereafter filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Patiala. It is difficult for the applicant to travel from Nurmahal in District Jalandhar to Patiala on each and every date, a distance of approximately 130 Kms. as there is no direct bus service from Nurmahal to Patiala. It is further submitted that the applicant's father is aged 50 years and suffers from various diseases. He is a government servant and, therefore, cannot devote time to the applicant. The applicant's mother suffers from arthritis and, therefore, cannot accompany the applicant to Patiala. It is prayed that in view of the aforementioned facts, the petition for grant of divorce be Transfer Application No. 200 of 2008 -2- transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, however, submits that the applicant is a qualified architect and is a young lady and, therefore, can easily travel from Jalandhar to Patiala. She has no minor children to look after and the mere fact that the distance from Jalandhar to Patiala is 130 Kms. would not suffice to transfer the divorce petition. It is further submitted that the applicant is not required to be present on each and every date and even otherwise, the plea regarding difficulty or inconvenience in travelling from Jalandhar to Patiala would apply equally to the respondent. I have heard counsel for the parties and am of the considered opinion that the present is not a fit case in which the divorce petition pending at Patiala should be transferred to a Court at Jalandhar. The distance between Jalandhar and Patiala would cause equal inconvenience to both parties. Even otherwise, distance alone cannot be the sole circumstance to order transfer of a petition, to a Court of the choice of one party. It is true that where additional circumstances, namely, the need to look after minor children, pendency of other cases etc. exist the distance to be travelled by a party, would be a valid circumstance for consideration, but in the present case, the sole circumstance i.e. a distance of 130 Kms. between Nurmahal in District Jalandhar and Patiala, in my considered opinion is not enough to order transfer of the divorce petition from Patiala to Jalandhar. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. August 29, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE