TA No.538 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.538 of 2010 Date of decision : 03.03.2011 Dr. Anju Goyal …Applicant Versus Dr. Mahesh Goyal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.P.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Mandip Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The instant application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition titled as ‘Mahesh Goyal Vs. Anju Goyal’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh or Mohali. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed an affidavit of the applicant wherein, she has stated that her daughter, namely, Mehak Goyal, aged about 13 years, and son, namely, Manik Goyal, TA No.538 of 2010 2 aged about 8 years, are studying in VIII and III standards, respectively, at the Dikshant International School, Zirakpur. There is no male member to accompany her to Sangrur. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that undue leniency cannot be shown to the wife in the matter of transfer of petitions. Merely because the applicant is a lady, does not mean shat she cannot travel. The learned counsel has also referred to Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma, (2005) 11 SCC 535, and Kakali Pal Vs. Balai Chandra Pal, (2005) 12 SCC 216. 5. There is no dispute on the proposition as set out by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. However, in the instant case, the children are residing with the applicant. It would certainly be difficult for the applicant-wife to travel frequently to Sangrur, along with children, which is at a distance of more than 100 kms. from Zirakpur (Mohali). 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. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Zirakpur (Mohali), and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be TA No.538 of 2010 3 seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Mahesh Goyal Vs. Anju Goyal’ under Section 13 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, deserves to be transferred to Mohali. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Mahesh Goyal Vs. Anju Goyal’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Mohali. The trial Court at Sangrur is directed to send complete record of the petition under Section 13 of the Act to the learned In-charge District Judge, Mohali, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned In- charge District Judge, Mohali, on 31.03.2011 at 11.00 a.m. 03.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No