TA No.432 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.432 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.12.2011 Manpreet Kaur ...Applicant Versus Sohan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vivek 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 ‘Sohan Singh versus Manpreet Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there has TA No.432 of 2011 (O&M) 2 been a history of physical assault and mental torture upon the applicant at the hands of the respondent and his family members. She is residing at her parental house since 16.10.2010 after having been ousted from the matrimonial home. She also represented before the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar vide representation Annexure P-1 on 20.10.2010, seeking registration of FIR against the respondent. The learned counsel contends that as a counterblast, the respondent has filed petition under Section 9 of the Act. Proceedings in the complaint case under Section 498-A, 406 IPC are pending against the respondent and his family members at Amritsar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Amritsar and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that TA No.432 of 2011 (O&M) 3 there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 7. The applicant-wife, is residing at Amritsar. The respondent-husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Ludhiana. It 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 Ludhiana. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Amritsar 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. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Sohan Singh Vs. Manpreet Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Ludhiana, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar. 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, Amritsar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar. 10. The parties, through their counsel, shall appear before the learned District Judge, Amritsar, on 23.12.2011 at 10.00 a.m. TA No.432 of 2011 (O&M) 4 02.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No