TA No.526 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.526 of 2010 Date of decision:21.2.2011 Babita ...Applicant Versus Shiv Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Ravinder Dhull, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The case file is not traceable as the same appears to have been burnt in the fire incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record copy of the petition alongwith relevant documents. The same is treated as original. If the original petition is traced at a later stage, the same will be added with it. Notice of motion has already been issued in the matter. The present application has been preferred by the applicant/wife Babita under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of petition titled `Shiv Kumar Vs. Babita' under Section 13 of TA No.526 of 2010 2 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') from the Court of Additional District Judge, Jind to the court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the complaint made by the father of the applicant, FIR under Section 498/406/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, on 6.8.2008. He further submits that besides this, an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. and petition under Section 13 of the Act are pending adjudication before the court at Hisar. It has further been submitted as a counter blast and in order to harass the applicant/wife, the respondent/husband has filed petition under Section 13 of the Act at Jind. Learned counsel has also submitted that all the petitions filed by the applicant are prior in time. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the distance between Hisar to Jind is only 90 kms and on the sole ground of distance, the petition in question may not be transferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly three cases filed by the applicant are prior in time than to the case filed by the respondent. The applicant is a resident of District Hisar. She has no source of income and is living at the mercy of her parents. There is no other male member in the family to accompany the applicant to attend the court proceedings at Jind. The respondent is an agriculturist and his father is in government service. In a dispute between the husband and the wife, normally the wife is at 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 TA No.526 of 2010 3 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 and Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC). In Neelam Kanwar's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court 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.” Considering the facts that petitions filed by the applicant are prior in time; she, being without resources, would not be able to defend her case at Jind 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 `Shiv Kumar Vs. Babita' under Section 13 of of the Act is withdrawn from the court or Additional District Judge, Jind and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Jind to the learned District Judge, Hisar, who will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Hisar, on 21.3.2011. 21.2.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: To be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No