T.A. No.195 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No.195 of 2010 Date of Decision. 28.09.2010 Preeti wife of Sh. Vikram Singh More ......Petitioner Versus Vikram Singh More son of Sh. Jagat Singh Mor .....Respondent Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The application for transfer of proceedings is filed at the instance of the wife for transferring the case from Kaithal to Fatehabad. The husband has moved an application for divorce stating that Kaithal is one of the places where the cause of action arose and that they last resided together at Kaithal. This aspect is denied by the wife and it is contended that they lived only at Fatehabad. The issue where the cause of action arise must only depend on the averments in the petition and it shall not become possible to join issues on disputed questions at this stage before me. Therefore, I leave that to be decided at the trial in so far as they are T.A. No.195 of 2010 -2- relevant to the case. 2. As regards the contention of the wife that it is inconvenient for her to go to Kaithal, which is about 125 kms from the place of her resident, I cannot accept the plea for the only reason that the distance from a place of residence as the only criterion for transfer will be dangerous proposition to advance. There have been cases where I am aware, Courts have allowed for transfers to places where it is mutually convenient. I would still accommodate a request in cases where there are infants to be tended, the person approaching Court herself is brought up in protected environment in rural areas. I cannot accept the plea for the empowered woman through literacy in the State of Haryana. The applicant is registered for Ph.D and she cannot complain that she has difficulty to travel 120 kms. She has no immediate encumbrances like children. If she is not reasonably well provided for or if she has to incur expenses for travel or if she has any particular difficulty where she cannot engage a public transport, she must make out a case for appropriate expenses and claim the same by way of maintenance. Litigation expenses is one of the heads of claim of maintenance. Provision for travel expenses could also be appropriately applied for. For every effective date of hearing, the husband shall pay Rs.1,000/- towards the travel expenses for herself and any escort that she may choose to take along with her. This shall be independent of any type of interim maintenance that she may be provided for by the trial Court if such a claim is made. If any such application is moved before Court, the Court shall consider the T.A. No.195 of 2010 -3- same. 3. The transfer application is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 28, 2010 Pankaj*