TA No.513 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.513 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.02.2011 Navneet Kaur ...Applicant Versus Parminder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Puneet Nangli, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition titled as ‘Parminder Singh Vs. Navneet Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has lodged FIR No.45 under Section 406, 498-A, IPC, at PS Division No.6, Jalandhar and another complaint under Section 494, TA No.513 of 2010 2 420, 506, 511, 199, 120-B IPC which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned JMIC, Jalandhar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Jalandhar and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. 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.” 7. Navneet Kaur, applicant-wife, is residing at Jalandhar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor son, to attend the court proceedings at Khanna, which is at a distance of about 105 kms. from Jalandhar. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of TA No.513 of 2010 3 Jalandhar and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of wife, the applicant. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Parminder Singh Vs. Navneet Kaur’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, deserves to be transferred to Jalandhar. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Parminder Singh Vs. Navneet Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. File of the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court, Khanna, to the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Jalandhar, on 15.03.2011. 15.02.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No