TA No.344 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.344 of 2011 Date of decision : 30.08.2011 Seema ...Applicant Versus Shri Krishan Chaudhary ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for the respondent. 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 divorce petition (HMA No.40 of 2008) titled as ‘Shri Krishan Chaudhary Vs. Seema’, filed by the respondent, from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak. 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 of learned JMIC, Rohtak and the divorce petition filed by the respondent is a counterblast thereto. TA No.344 of 2011 2 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 6. Smt. Seema, the applicant-wife, is residing at Rohtak. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. She is also saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor son. The petition filed by the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is prior in time. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Rohtak, 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. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the divorce petition titled as ‘Shri Krishan Chaudhary Vs. Seema’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District TA No.344 of 2011 3 Judge, Jhajjar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak. The entire record pertaining to the divorce petition (HMA 40 of 2008) shall be sent by the trial Court at Jhajjar, to the learned District Judge, Rohtak, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak. 9. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Rohtak, on 22.10.2011. 30.08.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No