TA No.22 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.22 of 2011 Date of decision : 08.04.2011 Pinki ...Applicant Versus Rakesh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Mrs. Pinki, the applicant wife has preferred this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), titled as ‘Rakesh Vs. Pinki’, filed by the respondent from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Assandh, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that proceedings in FIR No.37 dated 17.04.2010 on the complaint of the applicant are pending against the respondent at Panchkula. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the TA No.22 of 2011 2 applicant is a resident of Panchkula 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 parties. 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. The applicant-wife is residing at Panchkula. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Assandh. 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 proceedings at Assandh. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Panchkula and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the TA No.22 of 2011 3 applicant-wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Rakesh Vs. Pinki’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Assandh, deserves to be transferred to Panchkula. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Rakesh Vs. Pinki’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Assandh, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Assandh to learned District Judge, Panchkula, 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, Panchkula, on 07.05.2011. 08.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No