TA No.381 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.381 of 2010 Date of decision : 04.03.2011 Madhu Rani ...Applicant Versus Pawan Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Jagnahar Singh, Advocate, for Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition titled as ‘Pawan Kumar Vs. Madhu Rani’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Samrala, District Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance, which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned JMIC, Samrala. TA No.381 of 2010 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Samrala (District Ludhiana) and the petition under Section 9 of the Act has been filed by the respondent only to harass the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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. Madhu Rani, applicant-wife, is residing at Samrala. The respondent-husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, and living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Fatehgarh Sahib. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Samrala and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the TA No.381 of 2010 3 applicant-wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Pawan Kumar Vs. Madhu Rani’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, deserves to be transferred to Samrala. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Pawan Kumar Vs. Madhu Rani’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Samrala. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Fatehgarh Sahib to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, within three weeks, who will entrust it to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Samrala. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Samrala on 02.04.2011. 04.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No