TA No.58 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.58 of 2011 Date of decision:24.2.2011 Karamjit Kaur ...Applicant Versus Davinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.Iqbal Singh Brar, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The application is filed by the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings pending at Muktsar to Sirsa, where she is now residing. It is her case that proceedings under Sections 3, 12, 17, 18, 19,20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short `the Domestic Violence Act') are already pending against the respondent at Sirsa and in order to harass the applicant, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicant is a resident of District Sirsa. The petition filed by the applicant is prior in time to the petition filed by the respondent. The TA No.58 of 2011 2 applicant would not be able to defend the case at Muktsar effectively as she is dependent on her parents. The distance between Sirsa to Sri Muktsar Sahib is 150 kms and there is no one to accompany her. It is the divorce petition of the husband and it should be conducted in a manner which will least trouble the wife. In the circumstances, it would certainly be not convenient for the applicant to undertake frequent trips from Sirsa to Sri Muktsar Sahib. In a dispute between the husband and the wife, normally the wife is at the receiving end. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. 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, Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC) and Mangla Patil Kale Vs.Sanjeev Kumar, (2003) 10 SCC 280. Considering the facts that petition filed by the applicant is prior in time; she, being without resources, would not be able to defend her case at Sri Muktsar Sahib and primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen, in my opinion, the present application deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The petition filed by the respondent titled `Davinder Singh Vs. Karamjit Kaur' under Section 13(1) of the Act is withdrawn from the court of learned District Judge Sri Muktsar Sahib and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Sri Muktsar Sahib to the learned District Judge, Sirsa, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned District Judge, Sirsa TA No.58 of 2011 3 will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Sirsa, on 24.3.2011. 24.2.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE