Civil Revision No.6702 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6702 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 11, 2011 Renu Bala .....Petitioner v. Dinesh Goyal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Gurjeet Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. C.M.No.6693-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexure P4. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.5340-CII of 2011 Learned counsel for the respondent requests for placing on record reply by way of affidavit. The same is taken on record. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.6702 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 30.7.2010, Annexure P3, passed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, vide which application filed by petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code') for transfer of petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act') by respondent-husband against present petitioner from Civil Revision No.6702 of 2010(O&M) -2- Malerkotla to any other competent Court at Barnala was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Sangrur. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that marriage between the parties was solemnised as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 22.11.2009. After marriage parties lived together. However, differences arose between them. As per plea taken by petitioner in this petition, she was treated with cruelty on account of dowry and was turned out of matrimonial home by her in-laws and since then she is residing with her father at Tapa. A petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance was filed by petitioner-wife, which is pending before competent Court at Barnala. Petitioner-wife also got lodged FIR No.118, dated 20.9.2010 under Sections 406, 120-B and 498-A IPC at Police Station Tapa, District Barnala, within the jurisdiction of Courts at Barnala. Thereafter, an application under Section 9 of the Act was filed by respondent-husband against petitioner-wife before the competent Court at Malerkotla. An application under Section 24 of the Code was filed by present petitioner before learned District Judge, Sangrur for transfer of the said petition filed under Section 9 of the Act by respondent-husband from competent Court at Malerkotla to competent Court at Barnala, which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that transfer of the application has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, mainly on the ground that a real maternal uncle of petitioner-wife is a practicing lawyer at Barnala, and that some other relatives of petitioner are also settled at Barnala. However, it is contended that Shri Yadwinder Goyal is a practicing Advocate in Barnala and that he is not real uncle of petitioner and that he has also filed an affidavit to this effect that he is not real uncle of petitioner. It is further contended that there is distance of 85 kms from Tapa to Malerkotla, whereas there is distance of 35-40 kms from Tapa to Barnala and as two other cases are already pending at Barnala, hence, a case is made out for transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by respondent- husband against present petitioner at Malerkotla. It is contended that law is Civil Revision No.6702 of 2010(O&M) -3- well settled that in matrimonial proceedings, convenience of wife is to be given due consideration and weightage regarding place of trial of matrimonial matter. It is contended that petitioner cannot go to Malerkotla alone to attend the proceedings and that some family members from the house of her parents to accompany her causing inconvenience to them. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent-husband that though earlier it was mentioned that Shri Yadwinder Goyal, Advocate, is real maternal uncle of petitioner and, however, it has been stated that he is brother-in-law of elder brother of father of present petitioner and hence, it is contended that no illegality has been committed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, in dismissing the application for transfer of the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Act from Malerkotla to Barnala. Law on the point is well settled that convenience of wife is to be given due consideration and weightage for ordering transfer of petition by or near the place, where wife is residing. This view has been taken consistently by this Court in various judgments. In Veena alias Arti v. Pawan Kumar, 1998(1) RCR (Civil) 558 (P&H): 1998(1) M.L.J. 316, the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act filed by the husband at Sultanpur Lodhi were ordered to be transferred to Amritsar by this Court. In Smt.Sonia v. Rajnish Kumar Arora, 1997(2) RCR (Civil) 361 (P&H): 1998(1) M.L.J. 37, this Court ordered transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Act from Ludhiana to Amritsar. In Suman v. Gopal, 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 26, this Court having regard to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC), ordered the transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Gurgaon to Faridabad. In Milli v. Mukesh Kumar, 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 422, a petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights was ordered to be transferred from Jagadhari to Amritsar. In Harbans Kaur v. Satbir in transfer application No.203 of 2010, decided on 6.8.2010, this Court transferred the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act from the Court of Additional District Judge, Jind to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Barnala, by placing reliance upon observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumita Singh's case (supra) and Neelam Kanwar's case Civil Revision No.6702 of 2010(O&M) -4- (supra). In Neelam Kanwar's case (supra), it has been observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that for convenience of wife, transfer of petition to the place where she is residing would be preferred by the Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. In view of this legal proposition, this Court is to see as to whether any special reason is made out for declining request of present petition for transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by respondent-husband from Malerkotla to Barnala. The only special reason given by learned District Judge, Sangrur, while dismissing the prayer of petitioner-wife is that his real maternal uncle is a practicing Lawyer at Barnala. However, affidavit has been filed by Shri Yadwinder Goyal, Advocate, that he is not the real uncle of the petitioner and rather he has been engaged as her counsel. During the course of arguments, it was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that he is not real maternal uncle of the petitioner and rather he is related as brother-in-law of elder brother of father of petitioner. However, merely on the ground that Lawyer engaged by petitioner is remotely related to her, it cannot be said that a case is made out for refusing the transfer of petition filed by respondent-husband from Malerkotla to Barnala. Specific plea has been taken by petitioner-wife that there is distance of about 85 kms between Malerkotla to Tapa, where she is residing with her parents, whereas there is distance of only 35 to 40 kms between Barnala and Tapa. Two other legal proceedings between the parties are already pending at Barnala. Plea has also been taken by petitioner-wife that she would require some male member from the house of her parents to accompany her to attend the proceedings at Malerkotla. Hence, in view of this legal proposition as discussed above, and in view of the facts in hand, I am of the view that illegality and material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, by refusing to transfer the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act by respondent-husband against petitioner-wife. Hence, present revision petition is accepted. The impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, is set aside. Petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by respondent-husband is ordered to be Civil Revision No.6702 of 2010(O&M) -5- transferred from the competent Court at Malerkotla, where the petition is at present pending, to the competent Court at Barnala. Both the parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Sangrur on 4.4.2011, who would pass appropriate orders for entrusting the petition for disposal to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Barnala. Disposed of accordingly. 11.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/no.