TA No.92 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.92 of 2011 Date of decision : 15.03.2011 Pooja ...Applicant Versus Deepak Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed seeking transfer of the petition titled as ‘Deepak Kumar Vs. Pooja’, 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, Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance and a criminal complaint under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, which are pending at Panipat. It is further contended that the TA No.92 of 2011 2 applicant is a resident of Panipat and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband and his family. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent does not want to contest the present application. However, he has submitted that the case in question may be transferred to Karnal as he apprehends danger to the life and liberty of the respondent. He has further submitted that Karnal is nearby Panipat, where the applicant is residing. 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. Pooja, the applicant-wife, is residing at Panipat. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of TA No.92 of 2011 3 raising her minor son, to attend the court proceedings at Patiala. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Panipat 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. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Deepak Kumar Vs. Pooja’ under Section 13 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, deserves to be transferred to Panipat. 8. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent regarding apprehension to his life and liberty at Panipat as the same appears to be unfounded. 9. Accordingly, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Deepak Kumar Vs. Pooja’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Patiala to the learned Incharge District Judge, Panipat, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned Incharge District Judge, Panipat, on 18.04.2011. 15.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No