TA No.570 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.570 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.12.2011 Usha Rani alias Anu ...Applicant Versus Parveen Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the applicant. None 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 ‘Parveen Kumar versus Usha Rani alias Anu’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the competent Court at Sirsa. The learned TA No.570 of 2011 (O&M) 2 counsel further contends that criminal proceedings under Sections 406/498-A, IPC, are also pending against the respondent at Sirsa. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Sirsa, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. None has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. 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, 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. The applicant-wife is residing at Sirsa. The respondent- husband has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Bathinda, which is at a distance of about 100 kms. from the place of her residence. TA No.570 of 2011 (O&M) 3 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Sirsa 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. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Parveen Kumar Vs. Usha Rani @ Anu’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Bathinda, to the learned District Judge, Sirsa, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. 10. The parties, through their counsel, shall appear before the learned District Judge, Sirsa, on 24.12.2011 at 10.00 a.m. 02.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No