TA No.571 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.571 of 2010 Date of decision : 27.05.2011 Rajni Bala ...Applicant Versus Neeraj Sharma ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate for the applicant. None 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 ‘Neeraj Sharma Vs. Smt. Rajni’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jagraon, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ropar. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been thrown out of the matrimonial home. The child born out of the wedlock is being maintained by the applicant. She has also filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Ropar, in which the respondent is already appearing. On the complaint filed by the TA No.571 of 2010 2 applicant, one FIR stands registered against the respondent at Police Station Morinda, Distt. Ropar. 3. None has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the applicant is residing with her parents at Morinda, Distt. Ropar. She is maintaining the minor child. The respondent is already appearing before the Court at Ropar. Moreover, in a petition filed by the husband, the convenience of the wife cannot be ignored. 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. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Neeraj Sharma Vs. Smt. Rajni’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jagraon, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ropar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Jagraon to the TA No.571 of 2010 3 learned District Judge, Ropar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Ropar. 8. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Ropar, on 23.07.2011. 27.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No