TA No.453 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.453 of 2010 Date of decision : 10.05.2011 Jatinder Kaur ...Applicant Versus Amandeep Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.K. Trikha, 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 ‘Amandeep Singh Vs. Jatinder Kaur’, 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.), Hoshiarpur, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication at Jalandhar. The learned counsel further TA No.453 of 2010 2 contends that criminal proceedings under 406/498-A IPC, against the respondent are also pending at Jalandhar. Both the petitions are prior in time to the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Jalandhar and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. Reply filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. 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, 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. Jatinder Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Jalandhar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. TA No.453 of 2010 3 Divn.), Hoshiarpur. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor son and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Hoshiarpur, which is at a distance of about 50 kms. from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Jalandhar 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 ‘Amandeep Singh Vs. Jatinder Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Hoshiarpur to the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar on 10.06.2011. 10.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No