TA No.97 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.97 of 2011 Date of decision : 15.03.2011 Ramanjot Kaur ...Applicant Versus Vikramdeep ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Ramanjot Kaur, the applicant-wife, has preferred the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of petition titled as ‘Vikaramdeep Vs. Ramanjot Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. 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, Jalandhar. TA No.97 of 2011 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Jalandhar 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. None has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service. Accordingly, the respondent 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. Ramanjot Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Jalandhar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Kurukshetra. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her two minor children, to attend the court proceedings at Kurukshetra. TA No.97 of 2011 3 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Jalandhar and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Vikaramdeep Vs. Ramanjot Kaur’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, deserves to be transferred to Jalandhar. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Vikaramdeep Vs. Ramanjot Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Kurukshetra to the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Jalandhar, on 18.04.2011. 15.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No