TA No.105 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.105 of 2011 Date of decision : 13.05.2011 Pooja ...Applicant Versus Bhanu Partap Yadav ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 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 ‘Bhanu Partap Yadav Vs. Pooja’, filed by the respondent under Section 13-1 (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is improving upon her qualification and doing ETT Course from the State Institute of Education at Chandigarh. The young child born out of the wedlock is with the applicant and going to school at TA No.105 of 2011 2 Chandigarh. The distance between the two stations is more than 200 kms. The wife is residing with her parents after having been ousted her matrimonial home. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant wife is already pending at Chandigarh. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. 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.” 6. Mrs. Pooja, the applicant-wife, is residing at Chandigarh. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13-1 (ia) of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and saddled with the responsibility of raising her school-going minor child, to attend the court proceedings at Jhajjar. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Chandigarh and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, TA No.105 of 2011 3 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 13-1 (ia) of the Act titled as ‘Bhanu Partap Yadav Vs. Pooja’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13-1 (ia) of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Jhajjar to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 9. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, on 13.06.2011. 13.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No