TA No.116 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.116 of 2011 Date of decision :23.3.2011 Pinky Rani ...Applicant Versus Balbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.K.K.Garg, Advocate, for the applicant. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The applicant/wife has preferred the instant application for transferring the matrimonial proceedings pending at Sangrur. The grouse of the applicant is that she has no source of income and is living at the mercy of her parents. She is saddled with the responsibility of her minor son and no one in the family to accompany her and therefore, it is not possible for her to attend the court proceedings at Sangrur. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Notice issued to the respondent through his counsel representing him at trial Court has been received back with the remarks that the counsel is not in touch with the respondent and he be informed directly. However, the respondent is regularly appearing in the proceedings before the trial Court through his counsel. Therefore, it is TA No.116 of 2011 2 apparent that the responding is trying to avoid service and he is in the knowledge of ths transfer application. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex-parte. From the perusal of the file, it emerges that earlier the applicant was a resident of District Mansa, however, now she is residing with her parents at District Muktsar. The application under Section 125 Cr. P.C filed by the applicant against the respondent is prior in time. She is saddled with the responsibility of her minor son. She has no source of income and no male member in the family to accompany her to District Sangrur. Moreover, the distance between Sangrur to Muktsar is about 150 kms and, therefore, in the fact situation, it is difficult for the applicant to attend the court proceedings at Sangrur. In view of above, it would certainly be not convenient for the applicant to undertake frequent trips from Muktsar to Sangrur. In such type of dispute, normally the wife is at a receiving hand. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. 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; Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) MLJ 509 (SC) and Mangla Patil Kale Vs. Sanjeev Kumr, (2003) 10 SCC 280. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled ‘Balbir Singh TA No.116 of 2011 3 Vs. Pinki Rani and application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr. P.C. at Mansa are hereby withdrawn from the respective trial Court (s) and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Muktsar. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Sangrur and Mansa to the learned District Judge, Muktsar, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned District Judge, Muktsar, will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any other court of competent jurisdiction. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Muktsar, on 25.04.2011. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court feels that no prejudice would be caused in case the notice is not issued to the respondent regarding the transfer of the petition filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr. P.C. at Mansa. 23.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE