TA No.141 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.141 of 2011 Date of decision : 04.04.2011 Sudesh Bala …Applicant Versus Jaideep Malik ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The instant application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for transfer of divorce petition titled as ‘Jaideep Vs. Sudesh’, filed by the respondent, from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Palwal. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication at Palwal. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Palwal and working as a teacher there. Three TA No.141 of 2011 2 children born out of the wedlock are residing with the applicant. The distance between Palwal and Rohtak is about 120 kms. and the purpose of filing the divorce petition is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband. 4. Despite service through his brother, 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. As the applicant is serving as a teacher, it would certainly be difficult for her to repeatedly go to Rohtak to defend her case. Moreover, it would adversely affect the interests of her young children and all her students in the School. Keeping in view the larger interest of the students and the fact that the divorce petition has been filed by the respondent, the convenience of the wife cannot be ignored. 8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that in the instant case, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant- TA No.141 of 2011 3 wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the divorce petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Jaideep Vs. Sudesh’, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, deserves to be transferred to Palwal. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the divorce petition titled as ‘Jaideep Vs. Sudesh’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Palwal. The entire record pertaining to the divorce petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Rohtak to the learned District Judge, Palwal, 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, Palwal, on 04.05.2011. 04.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No