T.A.No.114 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. T.A.No.114 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.7.2008 Sunita .....Petitioner Vs. Pyare Lal and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the applicant. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this application is to transfer a petition, filed by the respondents under Section 25 read with Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') pending in the Court of Sh.H.S. Dahiya, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant lost her husband on 22.12.2005 in an accident. Six months prior thereto, she had given birth to a girl child. Compensation of Rs.1.00 lac has been awarded to the minor girl, on account of the demise of her father. The respondents, who are the mother and father-in-law of the petitioner and residents of Rohtak, in order to misappropriate the amount of Rs.1.00 lac, made an attempt to forcibly secure the custody of the minor girl. Consequently, the applicant filed a suit for permanent injunction, to restrain the respondents from forcibly removing the minor girl from her custody. As a counter to the T.A.No.114 of 2008 2 said suit, the respondents have filed a petition under Section 25 read with Section 7 of Act before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak. It is submitted that the applicant is a widow and has to look after the custody and welfare of a three years old daughter. The applicant apprehends that in case she travels to Rohtak, to defend the suit filed by the respondents, the respondents would, in her absence, snatch the minor girl and in case the applicant is directed to produce the minor girl before the Guardian Court, the respondents would forcibly take the custody of the minor girl. It is prayed that as the applicant apprehends danger to her life, as also to the welfare of the minor, the petition filed at Rohtak, be transferred to a competent Court at Charkhi Dadri, as she has to prosecute her suit filed at Charkhi Dadri. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. It appears that the respondents are not interested in contesting the prayer made in the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the paper book, as also considered the submissions, recorded herein above. I am of the considered opinion that in case the applicant travels to Rohtak to defend the case filed by the respondents and/or has to produce the minor before the Court at Rohtak, her apprehensions, with respect to custody and safety of the minor may come true. Even otherwise, the applicant is a widow, who has to look after the custody and welfare of a minor girl and has to prosecute her suit for injunction at Charkhi Dadri. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed. The petition filed under Section 25 read with Section 7 of the Act titled as Pyare Lal and another V. Smt.Sunita and others, pending in the Court of Civil T.A.No.114 of 2008 3 Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, is transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, is directed to forthwith, transfer the aforementioned case to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri. Parties are directed to appear before the transferee Court on 26.8.2008. 30.7.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE