TA No.355 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.355 of 2011 Date of decision : 05.09.2011 Reema ...Applicant Versus Paramjit Singh @ Raja ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rajpaul Kansal, Advocate, 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 ‘Paramjit Singh Vs. Reema’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the competent Court at Sirsa. The learned counsel further contends that criminal proceedings under Sections TA No.355 of 2011 2 406/498-A/323/504/506/34 IPC, against the respondent are also pending at Sirsa. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Sirsa, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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. Mrs. Reema, the applicant-wife, is residing at Sirsa. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Ludhiana. 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 three minor children, to attend the court proceedings at Ludhiana, which is at a distance of about 200 kms. from the place of TA No.355 of 2011 3 her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Sirsa 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 ‘Paramjit Singh Vs. Reema’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Ludhiana, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Ludhiana, to the learned District Judge, Sirsa, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Sirsa, on 22.10.2011. 05.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No