TA No.170 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.170 of 2011 Date of decision : 03.05.2011 Sonu ...Applicant Versus Hari Parkash ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. 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 ‘Hari Parkash Vs. Sonu’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Narnaul, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rewari. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 21.11.2003. Thereafter, the respondent filed petition under Section 13 of the Act which was withdrawn on 30.12.2010 in view of the compromise arrived at TA No.170 of 2011 2 between the parties. Consequently, the applicant joined the company of the respondent-husband on 30.12.2010 but was again ousted on the next day, i.e., 31.12.2010. Since then, the applicant is residing with her parents. She was also threatened when she had come to attend the Court proceedings at Narnaul. 3. The learned counsel further submits that proceedings in two petitions – one filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the other, FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC, dated 31.1.2005 registered at Police Station Model Town, Rewari, are going on at Rewari. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and contends that the applicant is not required to attend the Court on each and every date. The allegations of harassment and that she was threatened when she visited Narnaul to pursue her case in the first instance are also false and concocted. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the applicant is residing at Rewari since 2003, except for a day, when she visited the matrimonial home on 30.12.2010. The respondent is already appearing before the Court at Rewari in the petitions filed by the applicant. He is serving at Rewari, which is at a distance of about 8 kms. therefrom. The two petitions filed by the applicant are prior in time. Thus, the convenience of the wife cannot be ignored. There is also threat perception to the applicant as is evident from Annexure P-2. 7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the balance of convenience in the present case is in favour of the TA No.170 of 2011 3 applicant-wife and against the respondent. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Hari Parkash Vs. Sonu’, is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Narnaul, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rewari. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Narnaul to the learned District Judge, Rewari, 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, Rewari, on 03.06.2011. 03.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No