TA No.525 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.525 of 2010 Decided on: 14.2.2011 Pooja Gaur …..Applicant Versus Ashutosh Gaur .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Pratap, Advocate, for the respondent. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. As per office report, the case file is not traceable, as the same appears to have been burnt in the fire incident. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record a copy of the paper-book alongwith relevant documents. The same is treated as original. If the original file is traced at a later stage, the same will be added with it. Reply filed in the Court is taken on record. The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of petition titled `Ashutsoh Gaur vs. Pooja Gaur; (HMA No. 62 of 2010) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') from the court of learned District Judge, Karnal to the court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is TA No.525 of 2010 2 regularly being harassed for bringing insufficient dowry by the respondent and her family members. He further submits that the applicant was turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondent. The applicant reported the matter to the police authorities on which FIR No.349 dated 4.6.2010 was registered in Police Station City Bhiwani. Thereafter the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed. However, the respondent is not paying the awarded maintenance, therefore, applicant moved an execution application, which is pending adjudication before the Court at Bhiwani. It has further been submitted that the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the respondent is a counter blast to the applications filed by the applicant only to harass the applicant and her family members. Learned counsel has next submitted that it would be difficult for the wife, who is living with her parents alongwith her child, to attend the court proceedings at Karnal, effectively. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the facts, it emerge that the applicant lodged a complaint against the respondent. In pursuance thereof, an FIR was registered against the respondent. An application for execution of the order dated 16.11.2009, whereby the learned trial Court awarded the maintenance amount to the applicant, is also pending at Bhiwani. The applicant is having a minor child and residing with her parents at Bhiwani. In the fact situation, there would be a great inconvenience having to take the child on each date of hearing at Karnal and return from there, which is more than 300 kms to and fro. TA No.525 of 2010 3 It is well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife is to be seen in such like matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC). In Neelam Kanwar's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court 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.” Considering the facts that the applicant is having a minor child and she is residing with her parents and primarily convenience of the wife is to be seen, in my opinion, it would certainly be in the interest of justice if petition filed by the respondent titled `Ashutsoh Gaur vs. Pooja Gaur (HMA No. 62 of 2010) is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the petition titled `Ashutsoh Gaur vs. Pooja Gaur (HMA No. 62 of 2010) is withdrawn from the Court of District Judge, Karnal and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Karnal to the learned District Judge, Bhiwani within three weeks who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. Parties shall appear before the District Judge, Bhiwani on 14.3.2011. 14.2.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No