T.A.No. 317 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No. 317 of 2011 Date of decision 6.7.2011 Sarita Kumari ...Applicant versus Sney ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.K.S.Dhillon,Advocate for the applicant Mr.Surinder Sharma,Advocate for the respondent .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (ORAL) This is an application filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the wife-Sarita Kumari,for transferring the petition titled “ Sney v. Sarita” under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, (for short the 'Act') from the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Jalandhar to the courts of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife submits that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.12.2010.The applicant is subjected to cruelty, harassment and maltreatment for bringing insufficient dowry. He further submits that applicant-wife is on family way. He submits that due to non-fulfillment of demands and the cruel behaviour of the respondent and his family members, applicant was left with no option but to leave the matrimonial home. She remained admitted in Ragini Women Hospital, Kapurthala on 5.4.2011 and is taking treatment from there. She is totally dependent on her parents, having no source of income T.A.No. 317 of 2011 2 and is residing with them at Kapurthala. He stated that petitions under section 125 Cr.P.C and under Domestic Violence Act are pending in the Courts of Illaqa Magistrate/Special Judicial Magistrate,at Kapurthala. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband denied the allegations and submitted that the applicant-wife left the matrimonial home at her own free will.. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The applicant-wife is on family way and is residing at Kapurthala at the mercy of her parents. She has no resources to look after herself. It would certainly be difficult for the applicant-wife to go to Jalandhar to attend the court proceedings, in her present state of health besides financial constraint. It is well settled principle of law that the convenience of the wife has to be kept in view in such like matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar,2001(1) M.L.J.509 (SC). The respondent is facing proceedings in the Courts of Illaqa Magistrate/ Special Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. No prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-husband by appearing in the Courts at Kapurthala. He is running a readymade garment shop and is having sufficient earnings.. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if petition filed by the respondent-husband under section 9 of the Act is transferred to the courts of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the petition titled “Sney v. Sarita” under section 9 of the Act is withdrawn from the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Jalandhar and is transferred to the T.A.No. 317 of 2011 3 court of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala. File shall be sent by the trial court at Jalandhar to the District Judge,Kapurthala within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, who will either dispose it of or entrust the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Kapurthala on 8.8.2011. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 6.7.2011 MS Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.