TA No.78 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.78 of 2011 Date of decision : 22.03.2011 Mrs. Amandeep Kaur @ Deepika ...Applicant Versus Rupinder Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Mrs. Amandeep Kaur, the applicant-wife has preferred the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), titled as ‘Rupinder Kumar Vs. Amandeep Kaur’, from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Moga, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant lodged a complaint on 4.10.2010, on the basis of which, an FIR was registered against the respondent-husband. The applicant has TA No.78 of 2011 2 also filed petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage, which is pending at Ludhiana. The respondent is appearing at Ludhiana. As a counter-blast to the petitions filed by the applicant, the respondent has filed petition under Section 9 of the Act. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the distance between Moga and Ludhiana is only 60 kms. and the applicant can easily travel. Reply filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. From the perusal of the record, it is made out that the applicant has been ousted from the matrimonial home. She has no source of income to maintain herself and bear the litigation and travel expenses to contest the petition filed by the respondent at Moga. The father of the applicant is a retired person. 6. In a case titled as ‘Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396’, Hon’ble the Supreme Court, has categorically held that the convenience of the wife is to be seen. 7. Taking into consideration that the complaint lodged by the applicant is prior in time, the husband is already appearing at Ludhiana and the wife has no source of income, this Court feels that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Rupinder Kumar Vs. Amandeep Kaur’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Moga, deserves to be transferred to Ludhiana. TA No.78 of 2011 3 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Rupinder Kumar Vs. Amandeep Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Moga, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Moga to learned District Judge, Ludhiana, 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, Ludhiana, on 23.04.2011. 22.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No