TA 380 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH TA 380 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.9.2009 Gurmeet Kaur Petitioner vs Malak Singh and another Respondent Present Mr. DS Gurna, Advocate Mr.Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is defendant No.2 in a case filed by respondent No.1 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Jagadhri seeking a declaration that plaintiff- respondent No.1 is entitled to the maturity amount along with interest lying deposited with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Mustfabad in the shape of FDR in the joint name of plaintiff and defendant No.2. The plaintiff claims that the amount deposited with the bank was received by him after the sale of 41 kanals 16 marlas of land vide registered sale deed dated 31.5.2004, whereas the petitioner-defendant No.2 claims that the said amount had been given to her by her parents. The petitioner seeks the transfer of the said suit from Jagadhri to a court of competent jurisdiction at Rajpura. The petitioner claims that a petition u/s 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act titled Gurmeet Kaur vs Malak and another filed by her is pending at Rajpura and that the same is being contested by respondent No.1 and has TA 380 of 2008 2 been granted interim maintenance vide order dated 19.7.2008. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 contending that the present petition for transfer has been filed by the petitioner merely to harass the respondent. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has further contended that the conduct of the petitioner during the pendency of the transfer application has not been fair as the parties were directed to appear before this court but the petitioner had been avoiding appearance. The respondent had offered permanent alimony and maintenance for the child to seek dissolution of the marriage but the petitioner had been avoiding appearance in the court. Even a cost of Rs.3000/- was imposed on the petitioner on 21.5.2009 for deliberately avoiding the appearance before the court. She has not even paid the said amount to the respondent. When the petitioner's counsel was asked to instruct his client to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-, as ordered by this court, he stated that the respondent No.1 has not been paying the maintenance to her and that she has got no resources to pay the costs. Without entering into the controversy regarding the conduct of the petitioner, it is sufficient to observe that the convenience of the litigant parties is one of the main considerations while deciding the application for transfer. There appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner has filed a suit for maintenance at Rajpura and the respondent is appearing in the said case at Rajpura. No doubt transferring of the suit for declaration and injunction, filed by the respondent from Jagadhri to Rajpura will be inconvenient to the respondnet but considering the comparative inconvenience of both the parties, in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to transfer the suit filed by TA 380 of 2008 3 respondent No.1 titled Malak Singh vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, Mustfabad and another, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Jagadhri to Rajpuria. The file, complete in all respects, will be sent to the court at Rajpura, where the petitioner has filed a petition u/s 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act titled Gurmeet Kaur vs Malak and another by 24.10.2009. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Sr.D), Rajpura on 24.10.2009. The application stands disposed of in the above terms. September 7 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE