TA No.59 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.59 of 2011 Date of decision : 25.04.2011 Parveen Saini ...Applicant Versus Narinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Divya Godara, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. 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 ‘Narinder Singh Saini Vs. Parveen Saini’, 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, Mohali, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur. 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 Court of learned JMIC, Pathankot. The learned counsel further contends that criminal proceedings under TA No.59 of 2011 2 Section 406, 498-A, 323, 506, 34 IPC against the respondent are also pending at Pathankot. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Pathankot, Distt. Gurdaspur, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. A perusal of the office report shows that the respondent is deliberately avoiding service. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant 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, for convenience of wife, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that there are special reason not to do so. No special reason is shown.” 7. Smt. Parveen Saini, applicant-wife, is residing at Pathankot, Gurdaspur. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Mohali. 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 TA No.59 of 2011 3 proceedings at Mohali, which is at a distance of about 300 kms. from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Pathankot 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 ‘Narinder Singh Saini Vs. Parveen Saini’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Pathankot, Distt. Gurdaspur. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Mohali to the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Pathankot. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction, on 25.05.2011. 25.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No