TA No.125 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No. 125 of 2011 Date of decision : 05.04.2011 Meenu ...Applicant Versus Babloo alias Vikram ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Mrs. Meenu, the applicant-wife has preferred the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), titled as ‘Babloo @ Vikram Vs. Meenu’, filed by the respondent from the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Jagadhri, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar. 2. Despite service, none has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 3. The applicant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act TA No.125 of 2011 2 which is pending adjudication at Amritsar. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act. It has been further averred in the application that the petition under Section 9 of the Act is a counter-blast to the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the applicant-wife. She was thrown out of her matrimonial home. There is also a specific averment with regard to the demand of ` 1.5 lacs. 4. 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.” 5. Considering the fact that the petition filed by the applicant under Section 13 of the Act is prior in time, she is a resident of Amritsar and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Babloo @ Vikram Vs. Meenu’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Jagadhri, deserves to be transferred to Amritsar. 6. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Babloo TA No.125 of 2011 3 @ Vikram Vs. Meenu’ is withdrawn from the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Jagadhri, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Jagadhri to learned District Judge, Amritsar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 7. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Amritsar, on 03.05.2011, through their counsel. 05.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No