TA No.50 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.50 of 2011 Date of decision : 15.02.2011 Paramjit Kaur ...Applicant Versus Rajinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S S Gill, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The applicant, Paramjit Kaur, has filed the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of the petition titled as ‘Rajinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent harassed the applicant on account of bringing insufficient dowry. On 2.06.2010, the respondent gave severe beatings to the applicant and turned her out of the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the respondent filed petition under Section 9 of the Act at Jalandhar. The applicant is residing with her parents at Patiala. She is also TA No.50 of 2011 2 maintaining the minor child who is going to the school at Patiala. She has no resources to contest the petition at Jalandhar, which is at a distance of about 150 kms. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was filed by the petitioner on 6.12.2010. The petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent is dated 5.01.2011, which is later in time. Otherwise also, the applicant, who is residing with her parents at Patiala along with her minor child, which is at a distance of 150 kms., will not be able to contest the matter effectively at Jalandhar. 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. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Patiala. She is looking after the young child as well. Otherwise also, primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of wife, the applicant. TA No.50 of 2011 3 Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Rajinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, deserves to be transferred to Patiala. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Rajinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Jalandhar to the learned District Judge, Patiala, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala on 15.03.2011. 15.02.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No