TA No.562 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.562 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.04.2011 Rozy …Applicant Versus Kapil Anand ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant- wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition titled as ‘Kapil Anand Vs. Rozy’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ambala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kurukshetra. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending adjudication at Kurukshetra. It has been averred that the petition under Section 9 of the Act is a counter-blast to the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the applicant. TA No.562 of 2010 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Kurukshetra and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband. 4. Despite notices sent to his counsel in the trial Court, none has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 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.” 7. Mrs. Rozy, the applicant-wife, is residing at Kurukshetra. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ambala. 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 raising her minor daughter, to attend the court proceedings at Ambala. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of TA No.562 of 2010 3 Kurukshetra 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. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Kapil Anand Vs. Rozy’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ambala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kurukshetra. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Ambala to the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, 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 District Judge, Kurukshetra, on 28.05.2011. 29.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No