T.A.No.361 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No.361 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.5.2009 Smt.Navdeep Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Shri Jagdeep Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.N.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent. ... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.20000-CII of 2008 C.M. is allowed and the petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3 and legible vernacular thereof. T.A.No.361 of 2008 This is a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act titled as “Jagdeep Singh v. Navdeep Kaur', pending in the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jalandhar, to Batala. T.A.No.361 of 2008 (O&M) -2- It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage took place with the respondent on 1.10.2006 and a child was born. However, the relations of the parties became strained and a dispute broke out leading to litigation between the parties. The petitioner lodged a complaint under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and she also initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further her case that her parents are residing at Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala and it is convenient for her to attend to the proceedings at Batala where she can leave her child with her parents. It is also her case that if she comes to Jalandhar she is threatened with violence by the respondent and his family members. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has denied the averments made in the petition and stated that the petitioner is posted at Navodya Vidalya, Kapurthala which is close to Jalandhar and therefore the proceedings at Jalandhar can very well go on without any inconvenience to the petitioner. The petitioner has not denied that she is now posted at Kapurthala. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the arguments on the lines of the averments made in the petition to contend that earlier compromise was effected and the petitioner had willingly withdrawn her complaint against the respondent but the respondent has resiled from the compromise forcing her to revive her complaint against the respondent. It is her contention that simply because she is posted at Kapurthala, threat perception to her life is still there as and when she visits Jalandhar to attend to the proceedings. It is further contended that since other matters are T.A.No.361 of 2008 (O&M) -3- pending at Batala, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court in Sumita v. Kumar Sanjay and others AIR 2002 SC 396 as also the fact that the petitioner has a minor chil, who can be looked after by the parents of the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are transferred from Jalandhar to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Batala, District Gurdaspur, which shall issue notice to both the parties on receipt of the case. 12.5.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss