TA No.323 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.323 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.08.2011 Vikas Rani ...Applicant Versus Ved Parkash ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) CM No.20996-CII of 2011 Reply filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. CM application is allowed. Main case 1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant- wife, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition titled as ‘Ved Parkash Vs. Vikas Rani’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Jhajjar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar. TA No.323 of 2011 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that on the complaint lodged by the applicant, FIR under Sections 323/406/498-A, 506/34 IPC, stands registered against the respondent and criminal proceedings are pending against him in the Court of learned JMIC, Hisar. The applicant has also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the Court at Hisar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the respondent had earlier filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which was subsequently withdrawn. It is averred that the applicant is a resident of Hisar and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act at Jhajjar is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. 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 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.” 7. Smt. Vikas Rani, the applicant-wife, is residing at Hisar. TA No.323 of 2011 3 The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Jhajjar. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor son, to attend the court proceedings at Jhajjar, which is at a distance of about 170 kms. from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Hisar 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. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Ved Parkash Vs. Vikas Rani’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Jhajjar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Jhajjar to the learned District Judge, Hisar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Hisar, on 30.09.2011. 30.08.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No