Criminal Misc. No.M-18634 of 2009 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-18634 of 2009 Date of decision : 12.11.2009 Smt. Omi ....Petitioner Versus Zile Singh ....Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her estranged husband-respondent which came to be allowed and maintenance at the rate of Rs.550/- came to be granted in her favour. Thereafter, she filed apetition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the amount of the maintenance. That plea of hers is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind. She applied for transfer of the matter to Kaithal on an averment that she has to trek a longer distance to reach Jind. As against it, the averment proceeds, the respondent-husband has to commute from a much lesser distance. In support of the averment that the convenience of the wife must be given priority by the Courts, learned counsel relies upon Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 116 and Koppera Santha Kumar Vs. Koppera Suneetha 2006(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 592. The plea is resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who argues that rulings aforementioned do not Criminal Misc. No.M-18634 of 2009 -2- *** apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent volunteered to enhance the amount of maintenance from Rs.550/- to Rs.800/- per month with effect from today in order to enable the petitioner-wife to defray the extra expenditure which she has to incur on the public transport to reach Jind. I find the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner to be denuded of merit. The facts in issue in Satish Jaggi's case (supra) were entirely different. In that case, the matter was pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge who was elder brother of a sitting MLA who was very close to the father of one of the main accused. The father of main accused was a former Chief Minister of the State who belonged to the same political party to which brother of the Sessions Judge owed allegiance. In Koppera Santa Kumar's (supra) case, the facts were entirely different. The wife was residing at Kakinada. She was dependent upon her parents for her sustenance. She found it difficult to come from Kakinada to Karnool. She could not afford to take her witnesses all the way to Karnool. The marriage between the parties had also been solemnised at Elure. Besides, the wife apprehended danger to her life at Karnool. No such facts are involved in the case before this Court. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent has volunteered enhancement of the maintenance from Rs.550/- to Rs.800/- with effect from the date of the order and also above noticed facts and circumstances of the case, the plea for transfer of the case is held to be without any force and is ordered to be dismissed. November 12, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE