TA No.568 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.568 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.02.2011 Sonia ...Applicant Versus Ritu Raj ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition titled as ‘Ritu Raj Vs. Sonia’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a criminal case against the respondent under Sections 498-A, 406, 313, 294, 34 IPC which is pending adjudication before the learned JMIC, Sonepat. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Sonepat and the purpose of filing the petition TA No.568 of 2010 2 under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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, (for) convenience of wife, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that there are special reason not to do so. No special reason is shown.” 7. Ritu Raj, applicant-wife, is residing at Sonepat. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, to attend the court proceedings at Rohtak. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Sonepat 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. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Ritu Raj Vs. Sonia’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, deserves to be transferred to Sonepat. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Ritu TA No.568 of 2010 3 Raj Vs. Sonia’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Rohtak to the learned District Judge, Sonepat, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Sonepat on 18.03.2011. 15.02.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No