TA No.268 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.268 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.03.2011 Suman Devi ...Applicant Versus Vijay Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Smt. Suman Devi, the applicant-wife has preferred this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), titled as ‘Vijay Kumar Vs. Suman Devi’, filed by the respondent from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Khanna, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is residing with her parents since November, 2007. She comes from the poorest strata of the society and has no resources to go to Khanna to contest her case. Moroever, there is a threat to her life from the respondent. Her father is a daily-wager and in the absence of TA No.268 of 2009 2 a male family member, it would be difficult for the applicant to defend her case at Khanna. Even if some relation is engaged to accompany her, it will entail extra expenses upon the applicant. 3. None has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 5. 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.” 6. Suman Devi, the applicant-wife, is residing at Hoshiarpur. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Khanna. 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 Khanna. 7. Keeping in view the extreme poverty of the applicant and the averment that she apprehends threat to her life from the respondent, TA No.268 of 2009 3 it would be in the interest of justice if the prayer made in the application is accepted. Otherwise also, in the matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is to be seen. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Vijay Kumar Vs. Suman Devi’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Khanna, deserves to be transferred to Hoshiarpur. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Vijay Kumar Vs. Suman Devi’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Khanna, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Khanna to the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, 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, Hoshiarpur, on 30.04.2011 through counsel. 28.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No