T.A. No. 33 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. T.A. No. 33 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 7, 2009 Palwinder Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. Gursewak Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner wife has filed this petition under Section 24 of the CPC for transfer of petition filed by her husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short ‘the Act’) at Rampura Phool District Bathinda to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has to look after a minor child and it is impossible for her to contest the petition T.A. No. 33 of 2009 [2] under Section 9 of the Act by going to Rampura Phool. It has been claimed that it will be highly inconvenient for her to visit Rampura Phool on each date of hearing. Her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance is stated to be pending at Faridkot. Vide order dated January 28, 2009, parties were directed to appear in person in order to determine if there are chances of any amicable settlement. Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has not been able to come to the Court on account of serious illness of his father. The petitioner is present in the Court. On asking of the Court, she has stated that she is not willing to stay with respondent on account of his cruel conduct and that she has been maltreated by her husband. It has been informed by counsel for the parties that the distance between Rampura Phool and Faridkot is 50-60 kms. While deciding application under Section 24 CPC, the convenience of both the parties is required to be taken into consideration. The petitioner has already filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Faridkot which is being contested by the husband by visiting Faridkot. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she could be compensated for visiting Rampura Phool and contest the petition at Rampura Phool by granting her adequate amount for inconvenience caused on account of travelling. While dismissing this petition it is ordered that on each date of hearing when petitioner visits Rampura Phool, the respondent will pay a T.A. No. 33 of 2009 [3] sum of Rs.700/- to her in the Court on account of her traveling expenses. This amount seems to be sufficient enough to make petitioner comfortable to travel by hiring a conveyance on each date of hearing. So far as the claim of the petitioner that she will have to engage a counsel at Faridkot is concerned, it is not out of place to observe that she has got a statutory right under Section 24 of the Act to get litigation expenses. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed. July 7, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE