TA No.363 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.363 of 2011 Date of decision : 17.08.2011 Neelam @ Pinki ...Petitioner Versus Vikram & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 16704-CII of 2011 Allowed, as prayed for. T.A. No. 363 of 2011 1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant-wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition titled as ‘Vikram Vs. Neelam & another’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Jhajjar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rewari. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is 1 TA No.363 of 2011 pending adjudication before the Court of learned ACJM, Rewari. The learned counsel further contends that criminal proceedings under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent are also pending before the Court of learned ACJM Rewai. On the complaint made by the applicant, FIR No.156 dated 31.5.2011, under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 IPC, also stands registered at Rewari. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Rewari, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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. Smt. Neelam @ Pinky, the applicant-wife, is residing at Rewari. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of 2 TA No.363 of 2011 the Act, which is pending before learned Trial Court, Jhajjar. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her widowed mother and saddled with the responsibility of raising his minor son and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Jhajjar, from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Rewari and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Vikram Vs. Neelam & another’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Jhajjar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rewari. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Jhajjar to the learned District Judge, Rewari, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Rewari. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Rewari, on 17.09.2011. 17.08.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No 3