TA No.266 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.266 of 2010 Date of decision:22.2.2011 Dalbir Kaur ...Applicant Versus Mandeep Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Advocate for Mr.A.S.Sullar, Advocate, for the respondent. ........ JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (Oral) This is an application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of complaint no.113-II dated 8.6.2010 filed under Section 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short `Domestic Violence Act') from the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad to the court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. Learned counsel for the applicant alleges that the complaint filed by respondent No.1-Mandeep Kaur against Dalbeer Kaur-applicant (mother-in-law of respondent No.1) is a false and frivolous. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has left her matrimonial home on her own TA No.266 of 2010 2 accord on account of temperamental differences. It has further been averred that relations between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are not cordial due to different views. The petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') filed by respondent No.2 (husband of respondent No.1) is already pending adjudication at Sirsa. Learned counsel has also submitted that the brother of respondent No.1 is a practicing lawyer at District Courts Fatehabad and having influence upon the local police, and he may implicate the applicant in some false case and get her arrested. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As per provisions of Section 28 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 31 of the Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable and this application is thus not maintainable. Admittedly, petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by respondent No.2 is pending adjudication at Sirsa. It is also not disputed that application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and complaint under Sections 406, 498 A IPC filed by respondent No.1-Mandeep Kaur are also pending at Fatehabad. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that brother of respondent No.1-Mandeep Kaur is having influence over the local police, being an Advocate at Fatehabad and he can TA No.266 of 2010 3 easily get false case registered against the applicant and her family members. A lawyer is not in a position to influence the administration of justice. The apprehension of the applicant is baseless and deserves to be rejected. The applicant should repose confidence in the judicial process. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant. The prayer of the applicant for transferring the complaint no.113-II dated 8.6.2010 filed under Section 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act is declined and accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. 22.2.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE