TA No.276 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.276 of 2009 Date of Decision.16.07.2010 2. T.A. No.280 of 2009 Neeta w/o Yogesh Sahni r/o Surender Singh Kohli, r/o H.No.944, Sector 16, Panchkula ........Petitioner Versus Yogesh Kumar Sahni @ Jogesh Kumar Sahni @ Pinki Sahni s/o late Sh. Ram Sarup Sahni @ Bhagat Ji, r/o H.No.403, Mohalla Rajanwala, Near Police Station, Sunam Distt. Sangrur ...Respondent Present: Mr.Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the respondent. 3. T.A. No.34 of 2010 Yogesh Kumar Sahni @ Jogesh Kumar Sahni @ Pinki Sahni s/o late Sh. Ram Sarup Sahni @ Bhagat Ji, r/o H.No.403, Mohalla Rajanwala, Near Police Station, Sunam Distt. Sangrur ........Petitioner Versus Neeta w/o Yogesh Sahni r/o Surender Singh Kohli, r/o H.No.944, Sector 16, Panchkula ...Respondent Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate , for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- TA No.276 of 2009 -2- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. All the three applications are between the same parties and taken together for disposal with consent of both the counsel. 2. The applications in T.A. Nos.276 and 280 of 2009 are filed at the instance of the wife for transfer of proceedings initiated by the husband under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for custody of the child and under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights. The application in T.A. No.34 of 2010 is filed at the instance of the husband for a proceeding for maintenance initiated by the wife against him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. While the wife seeks for a transfer of proceedings, which are pending, from Sunam, District Sangrur to Panchkula where she resides, the husband is seeking for transfer of proceedings from Panchkula to Sunam, District Sangrur. 3. The wife is a working woman and said to be travelling everyday from Panchkula to Kurukshetra. The respondent is himself a patient having suffered 60% permanent disability and he contends that long travel will be inconvenient. He also contends that he is a cancer patient and he is not cured fully. 4. Both the counsel have no objection to the case being transferred somewhere midway but still there is no unanimity for the Court to which the case would be transferred. While the husband seeks for a transfer to Patiala, which according to him, is midway between Panchkula and Sunam, the wife would seek for transfer to Rajpura or Derabassi. I am informed that Rajpura is on the way to Patiala. Mere convenience of parties cannot be a ground of transfer but taking note of the fact that the husband is himself equally ailing TA No.276 of 2009 -3- by physical illness and disability. I would direct that the proceedings pending in the respective Courts referred to above are withdrawn and transferred to a competent Court at Patiala. The application for restitution and for custody filed by the husband shall stand transferred to the District Court at Patiala and the wife's application for maintenance shall be transferred to the Judicial Magistrate Court at Patiala. 5. All the transfer applications are disposed of as above. Parties shall appear before the Courts at Patiala on 25.08.2010. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 16, 2010 Pankaj*