IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No.199 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:27.09.2010 Kaushalya Devi ....Petitioner versus Om Parkash ...Respondent II. Civil Revision No.5498 of 2009 (O&M) Kaushalya Devi ....Petitioner versus Om Parkash ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate, for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The transfer application is filed by the wife contending that the matrimonial proceedings at Rohtak may be transferred to Jhajjar. Her grievance is that her husband had deliberately given a false address at Rohtak as though they lived together at that place. According to her, the Transfer Application No.199 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - husband is now residing at Faridabad, which is more than 100 Kms. from Rohtak and for him, it ought not to make a difference whether he should conduct a case at Rohtak or Jhajjar where she resides. According to her, the cause of action arose only at Jhajjar since the spouses last resided together only at Jhajjar. The husband contests the position and states that he was served at Rohtak and even in previous proceedings, the address at Rohtak alone has been given. 2. There is no unanimity in the contentions as to where they last resided. It will be probably a matter which can be decided at the time of trial if it has otherwise any relevance for the case. For the purpose of jurisdiction, if the husband states that they last resided at Rohtak that will be good enough for the Court to receive the papers and proceed further. For the wife herself, the issue ought not to be a major one, for, admittedly the distance between Jhajjar and Rohtak is only 35 Kms. The counsel for the petitioner, however, states that she has a daughter of 19 years of age and she has to leave her in the house alone during every hearing. I do not believe that it is a major inconvenience that may go in her favour, such as when a situation could arise if the daughter had been a child. 3. If the issue were to be seen only in the context whether the petition could have been filed before the District Court at Rohtak, then the issue will be only decided on the basis of pleadings. I cannot enter into a decision on a disputed question of fact and would, therefore, leave the matter for a decision by the Court if it is relevant at all in the course of proceedings. Transfer Application No.199 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - 4. The application for transfer filed by the wife is dismissed and the revision petition filed against the order where the wife had sought for correction of the address is also dismissed. These are not fundamental issues that will have a bearing to the merits of the case that should call for intervention from the High Court in exercise of power either under Section 115 of CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.09.2010 sanjeev