TA No.538 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.538 of 2011 Date of decision : 02.11.2011 Renu ...Applicant Versus Devi Dayal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.R. Bansal, 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 ‘Devi Dayal Vs. Renu’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Jind, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that on the complaint made by the applicant, FIR No.4 dated 06.01.2010 stands registered against the respondent at Police Station, Meham, and the TA No.538 of 2011 2 respondent is facing criminal trial therein. It is contended that the petition under Section 13 of the Act is a counterblast thereto. The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the competent Court at Meham. The learned counsel further states that the respondent is already appearing before the Court at Rohtak in the proceedings filed under Section 9 of the Act by the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Meham, District Rohtak, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act at Jind by the husband is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the respondent-husband is physically challenged to the extent of 50% and it would cause great hardship to him if the present case is shifted to Rohtak. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, TA No.538 of 2011 3 would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 7. Smt. Renu, the applicant-wife, is residing at Meham, District Rohtak. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Jind. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor child and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Jind, which is at a distance of about 100 kms. from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Meham, District Rohtak, and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. As regards the contention regarding 50% physical disability of the respondent, it is evident from the record that he is a Government JBT Teacher attending the school regularly and thus, can very well attend to the Court proceedings. Moreover, he is a man of resources. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Devi Dayal Vs. Renu’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Jind, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of TA No.538 of 2011 4 the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Jind, to the learned District Judge, Rohtak, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Rohtak, on 03.12.2011. 02.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No