T.A. No.463 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.463 of 2010 Date of decision : 25.02.2011 Amarjit Kaur ...Applicant Versus Jaspreet Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition titled as ‘Jaspreet Singh Vs. Amarjit Kaur', filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that two petitions filed by the applicant, one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the other under Section 12 read with Section 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 & 31 of T.A. No.463 of 2010 -2- the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are prior in time. The petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been moved by the respondent only to counter that petitions. The applicant-wife is resident of Village Pamal, Tehsil & District Ludhiana. It would certainly be difficult for the applicant-wife to defend her case at Patiala. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that only on account of distance, the trial cannot be shifted. 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. Admittedly, the petitions filed by the petitioner are prior in time. The distance is approximately 110 Kms..The applicant has no source of income and is residing upon the mercy of her parents. It would be very difficult for the applicant-wife to defend her case at Patiala. Therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent-husband. Accordingly, the petition titled as ‘Jaspreet Singh Vs. Amarjit Kaur', T.A. No.463 of 2010 -3- filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala', deserves to be transferred to Ludhiana. 7. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition titled as ‘Jaspreet Singh Vs. Amarjit Kaur', filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The record of the case under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Patiala to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana at 11 A.M. on 29.03.2011. 25.02.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Gagan JUDGE Note :Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No