T.A.No.268 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No.268 of 2008. Decided on August 21, 2009. Poonam Sood .. Petitioner VERSUS Deepak Sood. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Anamika Mehra, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The wife has filed this petition under Section 24 CPC, for transfer of a divorce petition pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Panchkula, to a Court of competent jurisdiction, at Jalandhar, on the ground that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of minor child and criminal proceedings under Sections 406 & 498-A IPC, are pending at Jalandhar, and that the respondent-husband is facing said proceedings by visiting Jalandhar . . . 1 T.A.No.268 of 2008 or through his counsel. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the application for transfer of the divorce petition from Panchkula to Jalandhar, inter alia, on the ground that the father of petitioner being a retired Balliff from Jalandhar might exercise his influence in Jalandhar and that the respondent is looking after the minor child. He is operating in Panchkula from his residence and has to look after the child. It will be difficult for him to go to Jalandhar to pursue his case. Besides this reliance has been placed on Annexures R1 to R3, police reports and, Annexure R4, the report of Women Cell in favour of the respondent. Annexure R5 is a copy of compromise. Counsel for the respondent has referred to 'Sanjeev Bhagat Vs.Sangeeta', 2003(4) R.C.R. (Civil), page 161, wherein it has been held that in cases pertaining to the custody of the child, the jurisdiction lies in the Court where the child normally resides and 'Neelam Bhatia Vs.Satbir Singh Bhatia', 2006(2), R.C.R. (Criminal), page 65, wherein the application of wife for transfer of proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act, from Chhatisgarh to Kolkata, was dismissed but the husband was asked to pay Rs.500/- in addition to the actual train fair. The judgment of Sanjeev Bhagat's case (supra) pertains to proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act, where there is a specific provision under Section 9 on the subject of jurisdiction, as such, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment in Neelam Bhatia's case . . . 2 T.A.No.268 of 2008 (supra), is independent on its own facts and cannot be applied to the present case especially when there are three other cases pending at Jalandhar, which are being defended by the respondent. Taking into consideration, the totality of the circumstances and the convenience of both, the petitioner and the respondent, it is deemed appropriate to transfer the divorce petition pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Panchkula to the District Judge, Jalandhar. As the respondent is already defending the other cases at Jalandhar, it will not be of much inconvenience to him to pursue the divorce petition at Jalandhar. In view of the apprehensions raised, which prima facie do not appear to be valid, it is ordered that the case will be taken up for decision by the District Judge, Jalandhar, himself. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Jalandhar, on 19.09.2009. File of the case, complete in all respects, be sent from Panchkula to Jalandhar. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 21, 2009. rka . . . 3