TA NO.507 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA NO.507 of 2011 Date of decision:20.10.2011 Smt.Sonia Verma ...Applicant Versus Hitesh Verma ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent proceeded ex-parte. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The applicant-wife has filed the present application for transfer of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') filed by the respondent/husband from the court of learned District Judge, Karnal to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ropar. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. From a perusal of the case file, it emerges that the applicant, alongwith her minor child, is residing at the mercy of her old parents at Ropar, after being ousted from her matrimonial home. There are averments of continuous beatings and harassment of the applicant by the respondent. It is further made out that earlier this Court allowed the transfer application i.e. TA No. 475 of 2009, which was moved by the applicant but he respondent subsequently withdrew the petition under Section 9 of the Act. It is further made out that two cases, first a petition under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the other arising out of FIR No.107 dated 22.9.2009 TA NO.507 of 2011 2 registered at PS Nangal under Sections 498A, 406 IPC filed by the applicant are pending at Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. Subsequently, the respondent filed another petition under Section 13 of the Act which is sought to be transferred, only to harass the applicant. Moreover, the distance between two stations is about 200 kms. It is well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife is to be seen in such like matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396, Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC) and Mangla Patil Kale Vs.Sanjeev Kumar, (2003) 10 SCC 280. In the circumstances, there would be a considerable inconvenience to the wife to visit on each date of hearing to Karnal, which is at a distance of about 200 kms. In a dispute between the husband and the wife, normally the wife is at a receiving end. It is the divorce petition of the husband and it should be conducted in a manner which will least trouble the wife. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant/wife and against the respondent/husband. Already two criminal cases are pending at Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. Considering the facts that the applicant alongwith her minor child is residing at the mercy of her old parents; two cases are already pending against the respondent at Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the present application deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed, petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Hitesh Verma Vs. Sonia Verma' is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Karnal and TA NO.507 of 2011 3 is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at District Ropar. The complete record pertaining to suit in question shall be sent by the trial Court at Karnal to the learned District Judge, Ropar within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned District Judge, Ropar will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. The parties shall appear before the Court of District Judge, Ropar, on 28.11.2011. 20.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE