TA No.516 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.516 of 2011 Date of decision : 14.11.2011 Poonam Sharma ...Applicant Versus Puneet Dutta ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.S. Cheema, 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 ‘Puneet Dutta Vs. Poonam Sharma’, 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, Sr. Divn., Ambala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Pathankot, Distt. Gurdaspur. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned JMIC, Pathankot. TA No.516 of 2011 2 The learned counsel further contends that the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act is a counterblast thereto. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Pathankot, 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 there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 7. Smt. Poonam Sharma, the applicant-wife, is residing at Pathankot at the mercy of her parents and has no source of income. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Ambala. In the circumstances, it would certainly be difficult for the wife to attend the court proceedings at Ambala, which is at a distance of about 320 kms. from the place of her residence. TA No.516 of 2011 3 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Pathankot, and in a petition filed by the husband, 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 ‘Puneet Dutta Vs. Poonam Sharma’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Ambala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Pathankot. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Ambala to the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, within three weeks, who will entrust it to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Pathankot. 10. The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Gurdaspur, on 17.12.2011. 14.11 .2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No