TA No.333 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.333 of 2011 Date of decision:14.7.2011 Harpreet Kaur ...Applicant Versus Kulwinder Singh @ Raju ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the applicant. None for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHUAHAN, J. Despite service, none has put appearance on behalf of the applicant. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. The applicant-wife, has filed the present application for transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') filed by the respondent/husband from the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. From the perusal of case file, it emerges that the applicant has been residing at Ludhiana with her old father after she was ousted from the matrimonial home. As the respondent failed to maintain the applicant, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Ludhiana. Besides this, she also filed a complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the TA No.333 of 2011 2 Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the respondent. It appears that the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been filed by the respondent at Amritsar only with a view to harass the applicant. She has no source of income and there is no one in the family to accompany the applicant to attend the court proceedings at Amritsar. The distance between two stations is about 150 kms. In the circumstances, there would be a considerable inconvenience to the applicant-wife, to go to Amritsar to attend the court proceedings on each date of hearing. In the matrimonial cases, normally the wife is at a receiving end. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. It is well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife is to be seen in such like matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396, Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC) and Mangla Patil Kale Vs.Sanjeev Kumar, (2003) 10 SCC 280. Keeping in view the facts that the applicant is living at the mercy of her parents, there is no male member in the family to accompany her to Amritsar and primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen, in my opinion, the present application deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The petition filed by the respondent titled as `Kulwinder Singh @ Raju Vs. Harpreet Kaur' under Section 9 of the Act is withdrawn from the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Amritsar to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, within two weeks from the TA No.333 of 2011 3 date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, who will entrust it to any other court of competent jurisdiction. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, on 16.8.2011. 14.7.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE