TA No.164 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.164 of 2011 Date of decision : 25.04.2011 Mandeep Kaur ...Applicant Versus Jasbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. 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 ‘Jasbir Singh Vs. Mandeep Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Amritsar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is prior in time. The respondent has filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act subsequently, as a counter-blast to the petition preferred by the TA No.164 of 2011 2 applicant. The applicant has to maintain her young child. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Ludhiana and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband. 4. A perusal of the office report would reveal that the respondent has been served through his counsel, Shri Barliog Bahl, Advocate, Amritsar. None appeared for the respondent. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant 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, 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. Keeping in view the fact that the petition filed by the applicant is prior in time and the applicant is a lactating mother, the applicant would not be able to defend her case at Amritsar. Moreover, it may adversely affect the health of the infant born out of the wedlock. 8. Accordingly, the instant transfer application is TA No.164 of 2011 3 allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Jasbir Singh Vs. Mandeep Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Amritsar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Amritsar to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana, on 25.05.2011. 25.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No