TA No. 375 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No. 375 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.9.2011. Narinder Kaur @ Neetu ...Applicant Versus Vicky ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Baljit Singh, Advocate for Mr.GS Nahel, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Munish Raj, Advocate for the respondent *** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(Oral) The present application has been filed by the applicant/wife, seeking transfer of the petition titled as `Vicky vs. Narinder Kaur @ Neetu', filed by the respondent/husband under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act ( for brevity 'the Act') from the court of learned District Judge, Patiala to the court of competent jurisdiction at Sangrur. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant apprehends threat to her life and liberty if she goes to Patiala to attend the court proceeding. Moreover, the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is still pending at Sangrur. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition filed under Section 25 of the Act for the custody of the minor child because he can do better for the child being a father. TA No. 375 of 2011 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. From the perusal of case file, it emerges that the applicant, after having been ousted from her matrimonial home, is residing at the mercy of her parents alongwith her minor child at Sangrur, after being ousted from her matrimonial home. There are averments of continuous beatings and harassment of the applicant by the the respondent. The applicant has also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is still pending at Sangrur. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, having no resource and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor child, to attend the court proceedings at Patiala on each and every date. Considering the facts that the applicant after having been ousted from her matrimonial home, is residing at the mercy of her parents at Sangrur; she has no source of income and primarily the convenience of the wife in the circumstances cannot be ignored, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the wife-applicant. Accordingly, the present application deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed, petition under Section 25 of the Act titled as ‘Vicky Versus Narinder Kaur @ Neetu' is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Sangrur. The complete record pertaining to case in question shall be sent by the trial Court at Patiala, to the learned District Judge, Sangrur, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The learned TA No. 375 of 2011 3 District Judge, Sangrur will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. The parties shall appear before the Court of District Judge, Sangrur, on 29.10.2011. 23.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE