T.A.No.363 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No 363 of 2010 Date of decision 28.2.2011 Poonam ...Applicant versus Krishan Kumar Saini ...Respondent Present: None for the applicant Sudhir Kumar Hooda,Advocate for the respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (ORAL) By filing this application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant seeks transfer of the petition titled “Krishan Kumar Saini vs. Poonam” bearing HMA case No.43 of 26.9.2009 filed by husband-respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short the 'Act') for the grant of decree of divorce from the Court of Additional District Judge, Rohtak to the court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat. The case of the applicant is that she was turned out of her matrimonial home in the year 2007 and thereafter she was residing at Panipat at the mercy of her parents. She has no source of income. The three children born out of the wedlock of the parties are residing with the applicant-mother and she is looking after them. From the perusal of the pleadings, it was noticed that earlier the respondent had filed a petition under section 9 of the Act, which was T.A.No.363 of 2010 2 subsequently withdrawn as having been compromised. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant has herself left the matrimonial home. He further submits that the distance from Panipat to Rohtak is 80 kms. and that she can appear before the trial court at Rohtak. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. Admittedly the case of the parties is that they separated in the year 2007. The applicant is maintaining three minor children since 2007. There is categoric averment that applicant has no source of income and she is fully dependent on her parents. The distance from Panipat to Rohtak is 80 kms. and it would not be possible for the applicant-wife to attend the court proceedings at Rohtak with her three minor children. Moreover it will add financial burden on the applicant in the absence of any financial resources. It is well settled principle of law that the convenience of the wife has to be kept in view in such like matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar,2001(1) M.L.J.509 (SC). No prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-husband by appearing in the Courts at Panipat. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if petition filed by the respondent-husband under section 13 of the Act is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the petition titled as “Krishan Kumar Saini vs. Poonam” bearing HMA case No.43 of 26.9.2009 filed by husband-respondent under section 13 of the T.A.No.363 of 2010 3 Act is withdrawn from the court of Additional District Judge, Rohtak and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat. File shall be sent by the trial court at Rohtak to the Incharge,District Judge,Panipat within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, who will either dispose it of or entrust the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat. Parties are directed to appear before the Incharge,District Judge, Panipat on 28.3.2011 at 11.a.m. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 28.2.2011 MS Note:Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No.