TA No.462 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.462 of 2010 Date of decision:17.1.2011 Rajwinder Kaur @ Daljit Kaur ...Applicant Versus Surinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Rambilas Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) This is an application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of petition titled as Surender Singh Vs. Smt. Daljeet Kaur moved Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') from the Court of District Judge, Faridabd to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. counsel for the applicant filed petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. as well as application for grant of maintenance/ad- interim maintenance at Bathinda. He further contends that the applicant is a resident of Bathinda. It has further been submitted that petition under Section 9 of the Act has now been filed by the respondent at Faridabad only with a view TA No.462 of 2010 2 to harass the applicant. It has also been submitted that the applicant is having an apprehension that the respondent may cause harm to the applicant Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer and contends that it will cause great hardship to the respondent and he would be not able to attend the court proceedings properly at Bathinda. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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, (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.” The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Faridabd. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, to attend the court proceedings at Faridabad. Considering the fact that the respondent is already appearing in the court at Bathinda, the applicant is a resident of Bathinda and it is the convenience of the wife to be seen, in my opinion, the petition filed by the respondent 'Surender Singh Vs. Smt. Daljeet Kaur' moved Section 9 of the Act is withdrawn from the Court of District Judge, Faridabad and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Faridabad to the learned District Judge, Bathinda, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. TA No.462 of 2010 3 Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Bathinda on 23.2.2011. In view of the above, the present application stands allowed. 17.1.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: To be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No