TA No.398 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.398 of 2011 Date of decision : 22.11.2011 Neelam Rani ...Applicant Versus Anand ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Raman B. Garg, 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 ‘Anand Vs. Neelam Rani’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Hisar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the competent Court at Sonepat. The learned counsel further contends that criminal proceedings under TA No.398 of 2011 2 Sectios 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 34 IPC are also pending against the respondent at Sonepat. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Sonepat and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act at Hisar is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. In support of his contentions, he cites Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, 2006(9) SCC, 197 and Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma, 2005(11) SCC 535. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 7. Smt. Neelam Rani, the applicant-wife, is residing at Sonepat. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Hisar. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court TA No.398 of 2011 3 proceedings at Hisar, which is at a distance of about 200 kms. from the place of her residence. 8. Moreover, the respondent-husband is already appearing in the proceedings initiated by the applicant at Sonepat, which are prior in time. Therefore, the cited cases are distinguishable. 9. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Sonepat and in a petition filed by the husband against her wife, 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. 10. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Anand Vs. Neelam Rani’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Hisar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Hisar, to the learned District Judge, Sonepat, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat. 11. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Sonepat, on 21.12.2011. 22.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No