TA No.344 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.344 of 2010 Date of decision : 02.05.2011 Bhawna Tehri ...Applicant Versus Gaurav Tehri ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, 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 ‘Gaurav Tehri Vs. Bhawna Tehri’, 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 Kapurthala. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned JMIC, Kapurthala. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the TA No.344 of 2010 2 applicant is a resident of Kapurthala and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. The distance between the two stations is more than 380 kms. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and states that the petition filed by the respondent is prior in time. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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. Mrs. Bhawna Tehri, the applicant-wife, is residing at Kapurthala. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Rohtak. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor son, to attend the court proceedings at Rohtak. 8. Though the petition filed by the respondent is prior in time, but keeping in view the fact that the applicant is a resident of Kapurthala and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the TA No.344 of 2010 3 applicant-wife and against the respondent. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Gaurav Tehri Vs. Bhawna Tehri’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala. 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, Kapurthala, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Kapurthala, on 02.06.2011 02.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No