TA No.258 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.258 of 2011 Date of decision : 13.05.2011 Meenakshi ...Applicant Versus Gopal Sharma ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. 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 ‘Gopal Sharma Vs. Meenakshi’, 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.), Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala. 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, Ambala. The learned counsel further contends that criminal proceedings under Section 406, 498-A, 323, 506, IPC are also pending against the TA No.258 of 2011 2 respondent at Ambala. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Ambala, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. Despite service, none has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant 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, 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. Mrs. Meenakshi, the applicant-wife, is residing at Ambala. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Patiala. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Patiala, which is at a distance of about 70 kms. from the place of her residence. TA No.258 of 2011 3 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Ambala 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. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Gopal Sharma Vs. Meenakshi’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Patiala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Patiala to the learned District Judge, Ambala, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Ambala, on 13.06.2011. 13.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No