IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No. 403 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.9.2011 Vandna ....Applicant Versus Savita and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.AS Kakkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr.SM Sharma, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present application has been preferred by the applicant, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction titled as 'Savita and another vs. Vandana and another' filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the marriage of the applicant and respondent No.3 was solemnized on 12.2.1993. Further contends that no child was born to the complaint from the loins of respondent No.3 after a long period of marriage. Respondent No.3 adopted the son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Further contends that the applicant after having been ousted from her matrimonial home, is presently residing with TA No. 403 of 2011 (O&M) -2- her parents at Faridkot. He further contends that the applicant was given severe beatings on account of demand of dowry and for not being able to deliver produce a child. She filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband and his family members at Faridkot. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. The fact of marriage of the applicant and respondent No.3 is admitted. It is also admitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the natural parents of the minor child. The suit filed by the said respondents is with the competent court of jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur. It is apparent that the applicant wants to linger on the proceedings. I do not find any justification in the prayer made by the applicant and the same is accordingly declined. Dismissed. 29.9.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE