TA No.362 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.362 of 2010 Date of decision : 04.11.2011 Kulwinder Kaur ...Applicant Versus Arvinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Jaideep Verma, 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 petition titled as ‘Arvinder Singh Vs. Kulwinder Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. From the perusal of the record, it appears that in the TA No.362 of 2010 2 petition filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent is already causing appearance before the Court at Pathankot. The learned counsel for the respondent states that there is apprehension of life and liberty of the respondent at the hands of the family members of the applicant at Pathankot as he was earlier attacked by the family members of the applicant there. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. The distance between the two stations is more than 100 kms. The respondent has deserted the applicant and left her in April, 2008. The applicant is residing in a rented accommodation at Pathankot. She is supporting three minor daughters born out of the wedlock. 4. In the circumstances, it would be difficult for the applicant to pursue the petition filed by the respondent at Ludhiana. Otherwise also, in the petition filed by the husband, the convenience of the wife is to be seen. 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.” 5. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as TA No.362 of 2010 3 ‘Arvinder Singh Vs. Kulwinder Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Ludhiana, to the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Pathankot. 6. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, on 13.12.2011 at 10.00 a.m. 04.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No