TA No.65 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.65 of 2011 Date of decision : 16.03.2011 Ashwinder Kaur ...Applicant Versus Gurpreet Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. C.K. Jha, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Ashwinder Kaur, the applicant-wife has preferred the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of the petition titled as ‘Gurpreet Singh Vs. Ashwinder Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Mansa, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the respondent was proceeded against ex parte in the petitions under Section 9 and 24 of the Act preferred by the applicant. The respondent appeared through publication on 13.08.2010 and was proceeded against TA No.65 of 2011 2 ex parte by the learned Civil Judge, Ludhiana, on 23.10.2010. The respondent also filed certain complaints against the applicant which were also dismissed in default by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Mansa, on 7.10.2010. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Act, the transfer of which is sought by way of the present application. 3. From the perusal of the record, it is made out that the applicant is residing at Ludhiana with her parents. She has no source of income whereas the respondent is a doctor and having a clinic, therefore, a person of resources. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 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. Ashwinder Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Ludhiana. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Ludhiana. It TA No.65 of 2011 3 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 Mansa. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Ludhiana and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Gurpreet Singh Vs. Ashwinder Kaur’ under Section 13 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Mansa, deserves to be transferred to Ludhiana. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Gurpreet Singh Vs. Ashwinder Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Mansa, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Mansa to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, 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, Ludhiana, on 19.04.2011. 16.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No