TA No.124 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.124 of 2011 Date of decision : 29.04.2011 Usha alias Rani ...Applicant Versus Manjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, 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 ‘Manjit Singh Vs. Rani alias Usha’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ferozepur. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a history of torture and harassment of the applicant at the hands of the respondent. There is a specific averment in the application that the respondent assault the applicant and she had to be hospitalized. The TA No.124 of 2011 2 family members of the respondent threw acid on the applicant. She was threatened in the presence of the members of Women Cell and Calendera under Section 151 Cr.P.C. against the respondent was registered by the local Police. It is further submitted that there is no male member in the family and the applicant is at the mercy of her old mother, who herself is a widow. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that it was the respondent who was assaulted by the family members of the applicant and he had also made a complaint in this regard to the Inspector General of Police, Boarder Range, Abohar, but he does not have the copy of the complaint. He further contends that the petition under Section 13 of the Act is prior in time. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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. Though the petition under Section 13 of he Act is prior in time, yet the fact remains that the applicant is not having any resources to defend her case at Amritsar, there is no male member in the family to TA No.124 of 2011 3 accompany her and the distance between both the towns is more than 240 kms. The applicant is also raising her two minor children, one being with the respondent. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Ferozepur 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. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Manjit Singh Vs. Rani’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ferozepur. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Amritsar to the learned District Judge, Ferozepur, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Ferozepur, on 28.05.2011. 29.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No