TA No.464 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.464 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.01.2011 Ranjit Kaur ...Applicant Versus Bhola Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. H S Rakhra, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. This is an application for transfer of petition titled as `Bhola Singh Vs. Ranjit Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), at Barnala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance which is pending adjudication before the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Bathinda. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the TA No.464 of 2010 2 applicant is a resident of Bathinda and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant and to pressurize her to withdraw the criminal proceedings pending against the respondent in which he is already appearing at Bathinda. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. He has argued that the respondent-husband filed a complaint case under Section 406/420/120-B IPC, in which three accused including the applicant-wife have been summoned in the Courts at Barnala. She is attending this criminal complaint. There should have been no problem in attending this case also. The counsel further submits that the respondent-husband is single hand person and his income is very low. 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. Ranjit Kaur, applicant-wife, is residing at Bathinda. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Barnala. It would TA No.464 of 2010 3 certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, to attend the court proceedings at Barnala. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Bathinda and it is the convenience of the wife to be seen, in my opinion, the petition filed by the respondent titled as 'Bhola Singh V. Ranjit Kaur' under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Barnala, deserves to be transferred to Bathinda. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Bhola Singh Vs. Ranjit Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Barnala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Barnala to learned District Judge, Bathinda, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. Since the main application stands allowed, the CM application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. 7.1.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No