TA No.161 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.161 of 2011 Date of decision : 05.05.2011 Luxmi Rani ...Applicant Versus Ramesh Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. A.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 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 ‘Ramesh Kumar Vs. Luxmi Rani’, 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, Barnala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that proceedings in FIR under Section 107, 151 Cr.P.C. and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in which the applicant is the complainant, are pending against the respondent at Ludhiana. The applicant-wife is living at the mercy TA No.161 of 2011 2 of her parents after she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 04.07.2001. The applicant also apprehends that she may be harassed when she goes to Barnala to attend the Court proceedings. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petition under Section 13 filed by the respondent is prior in time and it is at the advanced stage of adjudication. The applicant is appearing before the trial Court at Barnala and has never expressed any apprehension of any kind of threat at the hands of the respondent. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petition filed by the husband is prior in time, the applicant has appeared before the trial Court in the petition under Section 13 of the Act on number of dates and no untoward incident has taken place, I feel that transferring the matter at this stage would delay the finalization of the proceedings preferred by the respondent. 5. However, the fact that the applicant has been ousted from the matrimonial home and is residing at the mercy of the parents cannot be ignored and she cannot be burdened with the cost of traveling to attend the proceedings at Barnala. 6. In view of the above discussion, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the present transfer application is dismissed and the respondent is directed to bear the cost of traveling by the applicant from Ludhiana to Barnala, with regard to the petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is quantified to ` 2,000/- per visit. 7. Ordered accordingly. TA No.161 of 2011 3 05.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No