T.A.No.400 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No.400 of 2010 Date of decision 9.3.2011 Anupama ...Applicant versus Rakesh Kumar ...Respondent Present: Mr.Sandeep Ghangas, Advocate for the applicant Mr.Sumeet Goel,Advocate for the respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (ORAL) This application filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is for transferring the petition titled “Rakesh Kumar v. Anupama” under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short the 'Act') from the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal to the court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife submits that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.9.2008. A daughter was born out of the wedlock of the parties on 28.7.2009. The applicant was subjected to harassment for bringing insufficient dowry. The applicant was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 3.2.2009 and has been residing with her parents alongwith her minor daughter thereafter. She is working as a guest teacher in Government School, Garhi Sikander Pur, Panipat and looking after her minor daughter. The applicant-wife was threatened, harassed and abused by the respondent, when she went to Karnal on 28.4.2010 to attend the court proceedings. The respondent-husband is already facing trial in the petition filed under section 9 of the Act at Panipat. T.A.No.400 of 2010 2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant alleging that applicant is a lady of hot temperament and used to quarrel with the respondent and she deserted the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The applicant is residing at Panipat at the mercy of her parents. She is looking after her minor daughter and working as a guest teacher in a school at Panipat. It would certainly be difficult for the applicant-wife to go to Karnal to attend the court proceedings particularly when she is apprehending danger at the hands of the respondent. It is well settled principle of law that the convenience of the wife is to be kept in view in such like matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar,2001(1) M.L.J.509 (SC). No prejudice would be caused to the respondent-husband by appearing in the Courts at Panipat, where he is already facing trial. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if petition filed by the respondent-husband under section 13 of the Act is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat. In view of the above, the present application is allowed and the petition titled “Rakesh Kumar v. Anupama” under section 13 of the Act is withdrawn from the court of Additional District Judge,Karnal and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat.. File shall be sent by the trial court at Karnal to the District Judge,Panipat within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, who will either dispose it of or entrust the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction at T.A.No.400 of 2010 3 Panipat. Parties are directed to appear before the Incharge,District Judge, Panipat on 07.04.2011 at 11.a.m. 9.3.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) MS JUDGE Note:Whether to be referred to the Reporter?Yes/No.