T.A No.369 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No. 369 of 2011 Date of decision 29.7.2011 Maninder Kaur ...Applicant versus Gurtej Singh etc. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Harpreet Kaur,Advocate for the applicant Ex-parte. .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J This is an application filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transferring the cases (1) Civil Suit No. 80 dated 26.3.2010, titled “ Gurtej Singh v. Maninder Kaur & Another” and (2) Civil Suit No. 100 dated 23.4.2011, titled “Maninder Kaur v. Gurtej Singh and Others” pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Bhatinda to the court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent No. 1 married applicant on 13.10.1996 deliberately concealing the material fact regarding divorce from his first wife. Later on, it revealed that a fraud had been committed by the respondents with the applicant and that a divorce petition No.42-M of 1998 is pending till date. A son was born out of the wedlock of the parties. Applicant was turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondent on 12.4.2009. She further submits that applicant is Instructor at Government Industrial Technical Institute at T.A No.369 of 2011 2 Bhatinda, and when she was thrown out by the respondent, she was transferred to Patiala and is residing there since 17.4.2009. During the subsistence of alliance, the applicant built up a house at Bhatinda after purchasing the plot. She is not allowed to visit that house and to see her only son, even her application for visiting rights has been rejected by the court. Applicant filed a complaint against the respondents, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. As a counter blast, respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 1 lacs from the applicant alleging that the applicant committed a theft while residing in the matrimonial home, at Bhatinda. Thereafter, the applicant filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- against the respondents for illegally occupying and using her house at Bhatinda. The applicant is seeking the transfer of these two cases. None has caused appearance for the respondents to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant,despite service. Accordingly, they are proceeded against ex-parte. I have heard the learned counsel the the applicant and perused the record. The applicant-wife is residing at Patiala. She has been denied the right to see her only son and use the house raised by her. It would certainly be difficult for the applicant-wife to go to Bhatinda, to attend the court proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband. It is settled principle of law that the convenience of the wife has to be kept in view in such like matters. No prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-husband by appearing in the Court at Patiala. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the above titled cases filed by the parties are transferred to the T.A No.369 of 2011 3 court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the petitions (1) Civil Suit No. 80 dated 26.3.2010 titled “ Gurtej Singh v. Maninder Kaur & Another” and (2) Civil Suit No. 100 dated 23.4.2011 titled “Maninder Kaur v. Gurtej Singh and Others” pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Bhatinda are withdrawn and are transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. Files shall be sent by the trial court at Bhatinda to the District Judge,Patiala within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, who will entrust the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Patiala on 27.8.2011. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 29.7.2011 MS Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.