TA No.547 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.547 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.02.2011 Bhawana ...Applicant Versus Kaushal Arora ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. D.V. Mehta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, for the respondent. 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 ‘Kaushal Arora Vs. Bhawana’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Amritsar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been thrown out of the matrimonial home. She is residing with her parents at Chandigarh. She is unemployed and is to support the minor child born out of the wedlock. The applicant has already filed two TA No.547 of 2010 2 petitions, one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the other under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned counsel further states that the applicant would not be able to defend her case at Amritsar. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed prior to the filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the applicant-wife and the two petitions are only a reaction to his filing of divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Though admittedly, the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act at Amritsar is prior in time, however, the applicant wife is residing with her parents at Chandigarh. She is to support her young child also. She is unemployed and has no resources to defend her case at Amritsar, which is at a distance of about 250 kms. from Chandigarh. It would be difficult for her to effectively contest her case at Amritsar. 6. 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.” TA No.547 of 2010 3 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Chandigarh 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. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Kaushal Arora Vs. Bhawana’ under Section 13 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Amritsar, deserves to be transferred to Chandigarh. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Kaushal Arora Vs. Bhawana’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Amritsar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Amritsar to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh within three weeks from the receipt of the copy of order, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of District Judge at Chandigarh on 16.03.2011. 16.02.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No