TA No.465 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.465 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision :14.02.2011 Smt. Renu Bala ...Applicant Versus Dr. Narender Lohra ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of the petition titled as ‘Dr. Narender Lohra Vs. Smt. Renu’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar. 2. The learned counsel has submitted that the applicant has been thrown out of the matrimonial house by the respondent-husband in the year 2008. Three children born out of the wedlock have been staying with the applicant. The applicant has no resources and was constrained to file the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Hisar. The applicant has also lodged FIR under Sections 498, 322 and 506 IPC, against the respondent at Rohtak. TA No.465 of 2010 2 3. The learned counsel further contends that the applicant is presently residing with her parents at Hansi which is at a distance of 80 kms. from Rohtak. The applicant is at the mercy of her parents and is saddled with the responsibility of raising three minor children. There is no male member in the family to accompany the applicant to Rohtak to attend the Court proceedings. 4. As per the office report, the respondent is duly served, however, nobody has caused appearance on his behalf. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 6. Admittedly, the applicant is residing at Hansi. She is residing with her parents along with three minor children born out of the wedlock. 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.” 7. Accordingly, this Court feels that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. Consequently, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Dr. Narender Lohra Vs. Smt. Renu’ under Section 13 of the Act, TA No.465 of 2010 3 pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak, deserves to be transferred to Hisar. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Dr. Narender Lohra Vs. Smt. Renu’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Rohtak to the learned District Judge, Hisar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of District Judge, Hisar on 14.03.2011. 14.02.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No