TA No.341 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.341 of 2010 Decided on: 22.2.2011 Reshma Rani …..Applicant Versus Sanjeev Kumar .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Gaurav Sethi, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of petition titled `Sanjeev Kumar vs. Reshma Rani' under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') from the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Reply filed in the Court is taken on record. From the facts, it emerge that the petition filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act is pending at Ambala and thereafter the respondent filed another petition under Section 9 of the Act at Patiala. The applicant has no source of income and is living at the mercy of her parents alongwith her minor daughters. It is not disputed that the applicant is residing at the mercy of TA No.341 of 2010 2 her old parents at Ambala Cantt. There is also no dispute on the fact that the applicant has no source of income. In the matrimonial cases, wife is normally at the receiving end particularly in this case when the wife is saddled with the responsibility of two minor daughters. In the circumstances, there would be a great inconvenience to take the minor daughters alongwith her on each date of hearing at Patiala and return from there. 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 and Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC). In Neelam Kanwar's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court 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.” Considering the facts that the respondent is already attending the court proceedings at Ambala, the applicant is saddled with two minor daughters; she is residing with her parents and primarily convenience of the wife is to be seen, in my opinion, it would certainly be in the interest of justice if petition filed by the respondent titled `Sanjeev Kumar vs. Reshma Rani' under Section 9 of the Act is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the petition titled `Sanjeev Kumar vs. Reshma Rani' under Section 9 of the Act is withdrawn from the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Patiala and is TA No.341 of 2010 3 transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Patiala to the learned District Judge, Ambala within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned District Judge, Ambala, will either himself dispose it or or entrust it to any other court of competent jurisdiction. Parties shall appear before the District Judge, Ambala, on 22.3.2011. 22.2.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No