TA No.128 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.128 of 2011 Date of decision : 27.04.2011 Spinderjit Kaur ...Applicant Versus Iqbal Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The applicant-wife, Smt. Spinderjit Kaur, has filed present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition titled as ‘Iqbal Singh Vs. Spinderjit Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. TA No.128 of 2011 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the child born out of the wedlock is suffering from congenital disease, therefore, a continuous follow-up is required for the treatment of the child. The learned counsel has also referred to the documents, Annexure A1 and A2, which confirm the averment made by the applicant. 3. It is further averred that the applicant was thrown out of the matrimonial home before the birth of the child. The parents of the applicant are persons of ripe age and they cannot accompany the applicant to Patiala. The applicant herself is working as a School teacher at Chandigarh. The applicant has already filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Chandigarh. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the family of the applicant owns a house at Patiala and they keep visiting that place. Reply filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. An occasional visit to Patiala cannot be a ground for not allowing this application, particularly, when the young child born out of the wedlock is undergoing treatment at Chandigarh. Proper treatment of the child should be of paramount interest even to the respondent. In case the present application is not allowed, not only the applicant would be put to inconvenience, the health of the young child would also suffer. Accordingly, I feel that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. TA No.128 of 2011 3 7. Consequently, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Iqbal Singh Vs. Spinderjit Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 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 District Judge, Chandigarh, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh, on 27.05.2011. 27.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No