TA No.570 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.570 of 2010 Date of decision : 10.05.2011 Shivani ...Applicant Versus Ravi Kant Sharma ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The applicant in the present application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is seeking transfer of the petition titled as ‘Ravi Kant Vs. Shivani’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), pending adjudication in the Court of learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was married to the respondent on 28.06.2005. She was ousted from her matrimonial home by the respondent in September, 2008. A female child was born out of the wedlock. The child is with the applicant and is attending school at Ludhiana. TA No.570 of 2010 2 3. It is further submitted that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is pending adjudication at Ludhiana. The applicant has come to know that the respondent filed one petition under Section 9 of the Act at Pathankot in which the applicant has been proceeded against ex parte. It is further averred that the applicant, who lost her mother, has no means to survive and is residing at the mercy of her father who himself is more than 70 years of age. The distance between Gurdaspur and Ludhiana is about 175 kms. The respondent is a businessman and also a partner in the Arvind Public School at Pathankot. 4. An effort was made by this Court to serve the respondent through his counsel before the trial Court. However, as per the service report dated 7.5.2011, the learned counsel stated that the summons be sent directly to the respondent. The respondent is appearing before the Court in petition filed by him through the same counsel. Nobody has caused appearance on his behalf. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the respondent is avoiding service, accordingly he is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 6. From the averments made in the application, it is made out that the applicant is residing at Ludhiana at the mercy of her old father. The applicant is not employed and thus, is totally resourceless. On the other hand, the respondent is a businessman and also a partner in the Arvind Public School, Pathankot, which suggests that the respondent is TA No.570 of 2010 3 a man of resources. The child born out of the wedlock is also being maintained by the applicant. The distance between Gurdaspur to Ludhiana is stated to be more than 175 kms. The respondent-husband has filed the petition, therefore, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, particularly when the wife is not being paid any maintenance. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Ludhiana 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. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Ravi Kant Vs. Shivani’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Gurdaspur to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana on 10.06.2011. 10.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No