TA No. 439 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No. 439 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.9.2011 Vandana ...Applicant Versus Rajesh @ Ballu ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.HPS Ghuman, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.DD Sharma, Advocate for the respondent *** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(Oral) The present application has been filed by the applicant- wife seeking transfer of petition titled as ‘Rajesh @ Ballu vs. Vandana’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Nabha. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondent on 7.12.2008. Further contends that respondent and his parents were not happy with the dowry articles. Further contends that after some days of marriage, the applicant was maltreated by the respondent and his parents. She was ousted from the house. Thereafter, the applicant TA No. 439 of 2011 (O&M) 2 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.for the grant of maintenance, which is pending at Nabha. He further contends that as a counter-blast, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act at Chandigarh only for the purpose of harassing the applicant- wife. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer and contends that the purpose of filing the said petition by the respondent is to save the marriage. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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) conveniencewise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No special reason is shown.” Vandana, applicant-wife, is presently residing at Nabha The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh It would certainly be difficult for the wife, to attend the TA No. 439 of 2011 (O&M) 3 court proceedings at Chandigarh, which is at a distance of 110 Kms. Considering the fact that the applicant is presently residing at Nabha 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 ‘Rajesh @ Ballu vs. Vandana’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, deserves to be transferred to Nabha. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Rajesh @ Ballu Vs. Vandana’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Nabha. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Chandigarh to the learned District Judge, Patiala, within three weeks, who will entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Nabha. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala on 29.10.2011. 26.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE