TA No.552 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.552 of 2011 Date of decision : 18.11.2011 Geeta Rani ...Applicant Versus Vinod Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. 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 ‘Vinod Kumar Vs. Geeta Rani’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that after having been ousted from her matrimonial home, the applicant was constrained to file petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending adjudication at Bathinda. TA No.552 of 2011 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Bathinda, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. None has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 7. Smt. Geeta Rani, the applicant-wife, is residing at Bathinda. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Sri Muktsar Sahib, which is at a distance of about 50 kms. from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Bathinda and in a petition filed by the husband against the wife, primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my TA No.552 of 2011 3 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 13 of the Act titled as ‘Vinod Kumar Vs. Geeta Rani’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Sri Muktsar Sahib to the learned District Judge, Bathinda, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Bathinda, on 17.12.2011 at 10.00 a.m. 18.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No