TA No. 574 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No. 574 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 16.12.2011 Babita alias Bindu ..Applicant Versus Rajesh Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent exparte. 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 ‘Rajesh Kumar Vs. Babita alias Bindu’, filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Sirsa to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. 2. A perusal of the file reveals that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate , Ist Class, Panchkula. It has been averred that the applicant is helpless lady and has no means of livelihood for her and is wholly dependent on the meager income of her parents. She is unable to attend the court at Sirsa which is about 200 Kms from the Panchkula. Her father is unable to TA No. 574 of 2011 2 accompany the applicant to Sirsa as he is doing a petty job on contract basis. The applicant has no brother. The purpose of filing the petition by the husband under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 3. 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.” 4. Babita alias Bindu, the applicant-wife, is residing at Panchkula. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, at Sirsa. 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 Sirsa. 5. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Panchkula 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. 6. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Rajesh Kumar Vs. Babita alias Bindu' is withdrawn from the Court of learned TA No. 574 of 2011 3 District Judge Sirsa, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula . The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Sirsa to the learned District Judge, Panchkula, within two weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula 7. The parties through their counsel shall appear before the Court of Competent jurisdiction at Panchkula on 28.01.2012 at 10.00 AM. December 16, 2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Poonam (II) JUDGE