T.A. No. 380 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No. 380 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2010 Deepika Bansal .. Applicant v. Sunil Bansal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. K. Khunger, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent despite service. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the application is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, `the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights at Faridkot to Bathinda. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 13.7.2008 at Bathinda. After the marriage, the parties resided at Faridkot. However, no child was born out of the wedlock. In May, 2010, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Dowry of ` 1,00,000/- was demanded. Even a panchayat held thereafter also did not yield any result. Faced with the situation, the applicant filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 8.6.2010. It was thereafter that the respondent-husband filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act in July, 2010 just with a view to harass the applicant. The applicant in the present case is residing with her parents with no source of income. Nothing is being paid by the respondent as maintenance. It will be very difficult for the applicant to attend the hearings of the case at Faridkot, which is located at quite a distance. No one has appeared for the respondent despite service. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the aforesaid uncontroverted facts with enunciation of law, where the convenience of the wife is to be considered in such cases, I deem it appropriate to transfer the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent at Faridkot to Bathinda. The parties are directed to appear before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda on 13.11.2010 for further proceedings. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda may either keep the petition with him or entrust the same to any other competent court. T.A. No. 380 of 2010 [ 2] As the respondent remained unrepresented before this court, the factum regarding transfer of the petition from Faridkot to Bathinda shall be brought to the notice of the respondent or his counsel by the court concerned at Faridkot on the next date of hearing. The application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.10.2010 mk