Transfer Application No.544 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Transfer Application No.544 of 2010 Date of Decision:-17.05.2011 Rachna Shitij Kaushal @ Rachna Sharma. ......Applicant. Versus Shitij Kumar Kaushal. ......Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- None for the Petitioner. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondent. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Petitioner-wife Rachna Shitij Kaushal @ Rachna Sharma in the present transfer application under Section 24 of CPC has sought the transfer of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act(for short the Act) for dissolution of marriage titled as Shitij Kumar Kaushal Vs. Rachna Sharma filed by respondent-husband from the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. It is averred in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner-Rachna Kshitij Kaushal and respondent Shitij Kumar Kaushal was solemnized on 14.02.2009 as per Hindu Rites at Patiala and out of that wedlock no child has born. It is further averred that due to maltreatment and torture for not bringing sufficient dowry the petitioner was mercilessly Transfer Application No.544 of 2010 #2# beaten and turned out of her matrimonial house whereafter she filed two petitions-one under Protection of Women from Domestic Voilence Act which is pending in the court of JMIC Ludhiana and the another one under Section 9 of the Act which is also pending at Ludhiana in the Court of Civil Judge(Junior Division). It is also averred that there is no one in the family of the petitioner to accompany her to Patiala on each and every date of hearing whereas the respondent-husband himself is working at Ludhiana itself and as such no prejudice or inconvenience will be caused to him in case the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by him is transferred from Patiala to Ludhiana. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned Counsel for the respondent-husband. The aforesaid factual position averred in the petition with regard to petitions filed by the petitioner-wife at Ludhiana have not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. The only ground on which the prayer is opposed is that the respondent-husband apprehends physical harm to him as father of the petitioner has visited the office of the respondent no.5 and created a scene in his office. After hearing learned Counsel for the respondent and perusing the record carefully, I find no ground to reject the prayer made in the petition. Except bald allegations no material has been placed on record to reject the prayer made in the petition. Further it is also not denied that the respondent-husband is working at Ludhiana where the petition is sought to be transferred and as such no prejudice or inconvenience would be caused to the respondent-husband. Accordingly application is allowed and it is ordered that the Transfer Application No.544 of 2010 #3# petition titled as Shitij Kumar Kaushal Vs. Rachna Sharma be withdrawn from the court at Patiala and transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. Disposed of in the above terms. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE May 17, 2011 Vinay