CM No. 26734 CII of 2011 in /and TA No. 452 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 26734 CII of 2011 in /and TA No. 452 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2011 Geeta Verma ...Applicant Versus Sanjay Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.RK Rohilla, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.RS Malik, Advocate for the respondent **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) CM No.26734-CII of 2011 Application for placing on record written statement filed on behalf of respondent is allowed. Written statement is taken on record. TA No. 452 of 2011 The present application has been filed by the applicant-wife, seeking transfer of the petition titled as 'Sanjay Kumar vs Geeta Verma', filed by the respondent-husband under Section 11 read with Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short 'the Act) from the Court of learned District Judge, Sonepat to any other competent Court of justification at Panipat. CM No. 26734 CII of 2011 in /and TA No. 452 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the applicant contends that after few days of marriage, the applicant was ousted from her matrimonial home. He further contends that the respondent and his family members tortured her and demanded dowry. Further contends that after having been ousted from her matrimonial home, she lodged a complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panipat. She has also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of interim maintenance, which is pending at Panipat. It is further contended that she is presently residing at the mercy of his old aged mother at Samalkha, District Panipat. She has no source of income and it is very difficult for her to go to Sonepat to attend the Court proceedings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and stated that the applicant has contracted second marriage without a decree of divorce. She has concealed this fact. He further contends that the applicant filed two petitions as a counter blast to the petition under Section 11 of the Act, and falsely implicated him and his family members. He further contends that the distance between Panipat and Sonipat is only 30 Kms. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the conduct of the applicant, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out to transfer the case in question. The distance from Panipat to Sonipat is only 30 Kms. Both cities are situated at the National Highway and well connected. Moreover, the transfer cannot be granted solely on CM No. 26734 CII of 2011 in /and TA No. 452 of 2011 (O&M) 3 account of distance. The conduct of the parties is to be seen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Sharma vs. Manjit Sharma, (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases, 535, has held that “merely because petitioner is a lady does not mean that she cannot travel from one place to another and this itself is no substantial ground for transfer of the case”. Further, in Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 197, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “some times, the leniency shown by the Courts in transfer petitions, is being misused by the women”. In view of the above position, in the instant case, no ground is made out to transfer the case. Accordingly, the present transfer application is dismissed. However, the respondent-husband is directed to pay travel expenses to the applicant-wife, which is quantified as Rs.1000/- per visit. 9.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE