TA No.31 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.31 of 2011 Date of decision : 23.05.2011 Smt. Soni Sharma ...Applicant Versus Shiv Kumar Sharma ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. 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 ‘Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Sonia Sharma’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court), Faridabad, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. 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 Court at Bhiwani. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the TA No.31 of 2011 2 applicant is a resident of Bhiwani, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. Despite service, none has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant 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, 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 Bhiwani. The respondent- husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge (Family Court), Faridabad. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, saddled with the responsibility of raising her two minor children who are studying in a School at Bhiwani, to attend the court proceedings at Faridabd, which is at a distance of about 300 kms. from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Bhiwani and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, TA No.31 of 2011 3 therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Sonia Sharma’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court), Faridabad, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Faridabad to the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, on 23.06.2011. 23.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No