TA No. 44 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No. 44 of 2011 Date of decision:31.3.2011 Neelam Rani ...Applicant Versus Ashwani Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.R.M.Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant. None for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The applicant-wife has filed the present application for transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') filed by the respondent-husband from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar to the court of competent jurisdiction at Zira. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the wife- applicant is a resident of Zira, District Ferozepur. The application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. filed by her is prior in time to the petition in question. It has further been submitted that the applicant has no source of income and is living at the mercy of her old parents alongwith her three minor children. In the fact situation, it is highly inconvenient for the applicant to travel from Amritsar to Zira to defend the proceedings instituted by the husband. TA No. 44 of 2011 2 The office report regarding service amply establishes the fact that the respondent is trying to evade service. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. From the perusal of record, it emerges that the applicant is saddled with the responsibility of raising three minor children. She has no source of income and is living at the mercy of her old parents since 2005. In a dispute between the husband and the wife, normally the wife is at a receiving end. The husband/respondent has instituted the petition in question against the wife, therefore, convenience of the wife must be looked at. It is well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife is to be seen in such matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396, Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC) and Mangla Patil Kale Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, (2003) 10 SCC 280. Keeping in view the facts that the applicant has no source of income; she is living at the mercy of her old parents alongwith her three minor children and primarily the convenience of wife is to be seen in such matters, therefore, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if present application is allowed. In view of above, the present application is allowed. The petition filed by the respondent titled `Ashwani Kumar vs. Neelam Rani under Section 9 of the Act is withdrawn from the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Zira, District Ferozepur. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Amritsar to the court of competent jurisdiction at TA No. 44 of 2011 3 Ferozepur within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned Magistrate, Zira, on 29.4.2011. 31.3.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE