TA No.66 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.66 of 2011 Date of decision : 04.04.2011 Smt. Kaushalya @ Meenu ...Applicant Versus Vijay @ Mintu ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Smt. Kaushalya, the applicant-wife has filed the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for transfer of petition titled as ‘Vijay @ Mintu Vs. Smt. Kaushalya @ Meenu’, filed by the respondent under Section 11/13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jhajjar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the petition under Section 12 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and proceedings in the FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC, are pending at Jhajjar. TA No.66 of 2011 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Jhajjar and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 11/13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband. 4. Despite service, none has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 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. Smt. Kaushalya, the applicant-wife, is residing at Jhajjar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 11/13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Rohtak. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of TA No.66 of 2011 3 Jhajjar and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Vijay @ Mintu Vs. Smt. Kaushalya @ Meenu’ under Section 11/13 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, deserves to be transferred to Jhajjar. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 11/13 of the Act titled as ‘Vijay @ Mintu Vs. Smt. Kaushalya @ Meenu’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jhajjar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 11/13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Rohtak to the learned District Judge, Jhajjar, 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, Jhajjar, on 04.05.2011. 04.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No