TA NO.473 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA NO.473 of 2011 Date of decision:21.10.2011 Komal Devi @ Komal Kumari @ Komal Rani ...Applicant Versus Harbhajan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Kamalpreet, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The present application has been filed by the applicant wife for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') from the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib to the court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. As per office report, service is complete. However none has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent and therefore, he is proceeded against ex parte. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that the applicant alongwith the minor child has been residing with her old mother at Panchkula after being ousted from the matrimonial home. There are continuous averments of maltreatment and harassment of the applicant by TA NO.473 of 2011 2 the respondent. Two cases, first a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and the other under Sections 323/405/498-A/506/120B IPC filed by the applicant against the respondent, are prior in time. The applicant has no source of income and there is no one in the family to accompany the applicant to attend the court proceedings at Fatehgarh Sahib. In the circumstances, there would be a considerable inconvenience to the applicant-wife alongwith minor child to go to Fatehgarh Sahib, which is at a distance of about 100 kms. In the matrimonial cases, normally the wife is at a receiving end. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. It is a well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife is to be seen in such like matters as has been held in the cases of Sumitra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396, Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC) and Mangla Patil Kale Vs.Sanjeev Kumar, (2003) 10 SCC 280. Keeping in view the facts that the applicant alongwith her minor child is living at Panchkula; two cases are already pending there and primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen, in my opinion, the present application deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, the present application is allowed. The petition filed by the respondent titled as `Harbhajan Singh @ Manga Vs. Komal Devi @ Komal Kumari @ Komal Rani' under Section 9 of the Act is withdrawn from the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Fatehgarh Sahib to the learned District Judge, Panchkula, within two weeks from the date of receipt TA NO.473 of 2011 3 of a certified copy of this order. The learned District Judge, Panchkula will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Panchkula, on 28.11.2011. 21.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Mks JUDGE