T.A.No. 296 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No. 296 of 2011 Date of decision 8.7.2011 Kiranjeet Kaur ...Applicant versus Barry Bhangoo ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhu,Advocate for the applicant None for the respondent .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (ORAL) This is an application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring the petition titled “Barry Bhangoo v. Kiranjit Kaur” under sections 7 and 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act,1890 and under section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956 from the court of the District Judge, Family Court,Gurgaon to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was married to the respondent in 1992. They were staying in the United States of America. In December,2007, they returned to India and started residing at Delhi. A male child was born out of the wedlock of the parties in 2009. He further submits that due to temperamental differences, dispute arose between the parties. The applicant started living at Patiala in October,2010 with her parents. He states that on 19.3.2011, the respondent came to Patiala and forcibly took away the child from the custody of the applicant. Applicant filed Criminal writ petition in this Court and DDR was lodged against the respondent, as a counter blast to it, he filed the petitions T.A.No. 296 of 2011 2 at Gurgaon to harass the applicant. From the averments made in the petitions filed by the husband under sections 7 and 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act ,1890, and under section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956, it is clear that the child was in the custody of the mother at Patiala. The applicant is residing with her parents at Patiala since October,2010. She was ousted from the matrimonial home by the respondent. Ordinarily, petition under section 7 and 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act should proceed at the place where the child is residing, but in the present case, it is proved on the record from the averments made by the respondent that he took away the child from the custody of the mother- applicant. The applicant, though, educated, but is not in employment and thus at present has no income of her own and is dependent upon her parents. The distance from Gurgaon to Patiala is more than 250 kms. The old parents of the applicant are supporting her. However, they are not capable to move to Gurgaon to contest the petitions filed by the respondent. This is also not disputed that the child, aged 2 years, was with the applicant and he was forcibly removed from the custody of the applicant without her permission. Keeping in view the facts that the child is 2 years old, the applicant has no source of income and the distance from Gurgaon to Patiala is 250 kms, it would be in the interest of justice, if the present application is allowed and the petitions filed by the respondent titled “Barry Bhangoo v. Kiranjit Kaur” under sections 7 and 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 and under section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, are T.A.No. 296 of 2011 3 withdrawn from the court of District Judge, Family Court Gurgaon and are transferred to the courts of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. File shall be sent by the trial court at Gurgaon to the District Judge,Patiala within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, who will either dispose it of or entrust the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala.. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Patiala on 8.8.2011. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 8.7.2011 JUDGE MS