TA No.384 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.384 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.01.2011 Harjinder Kaur ...Applicant Versus Sukhwinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Jatinder J C Nagpal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R K Dhiman, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. This is an application for transfer of petition titled as ‘Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Harjinder Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that earlier as well, the respondent filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Jagraon, which was transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala by this Court in TA No.322 of 2009 vide order dated TA No.384 of 2010 2 17.11.2009 (Annexure P-2). The petition under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2010 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Patiala. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Patiala and she is also saddled with the responsibility of a minor daughter. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. 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.” 8. Harjinder Kaur, applicant-wife, is residing at Patiala. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Ludhiana. It would certainly TA No.384 of 2010 3 be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and also supporting her minor daughter, to attend the court proceedings at Ludhiana. 9. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Patiala, primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen and as the parties are appearing before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala, it would be in the interest of both the parties if the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act filed by the respondent titled as ‘Sukhwinder Singh V. Harjinder Kaur’ under Section 10 of the Act, pending in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana are transferred to Patiala. 10. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 10 of the Act titled as ‘Sukhwinder Singh Vs Harjinder Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Ludhiana to learned District Judge, Patiala, within three weeks from the date of order, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction for disposal. 11. The parties shall appear before the Court of District Judge at Patiala on 21.02.2011. 14.01.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE TA No.384 of 2010 4 Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No