TA No.428 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.428 of 2010 Date of decision:23.2.2011 Taranjeet Kaur ...Applicant Versus Kewal Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Balram Singh, Advocate, for the applicant. None for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The case file is not traceable as the same appears to have been burnt in the fire incident. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record copy of the petition alongwith relevant documents. The same is treated as original. If the original petition is traced at a later stage, the same will be added with it. This is a transfer application by the wife. She seeks the transfer of matrimonial proceedings filed by the husband in Tarn Taran to Amritsar, where she is now residing. It is her case that two minor sons of the marriage is with her in Amritsar and she would not be able to go to and fro to contest the proceedings, in Tarn Taran Service is complete. However, nobody has caused appearance TA No.428 of 2010 2 on behalf of the respondent. He is accordingly proceeded against ex parte. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. From the facts, it emerge that the applicant is a resident of District Amritsar. She has no source of income and is saddled with the responsibility of two minor sons, whereas the respondent is in Government service and has sufficient means. There is no other male member in the family to accompany the applicant to attend the court proceedings at Tarn Taran. In the circumstances, there would be a great inconvenience to take the minor sons alongwith her on each date of hearing at Tarn Taran and return from there. In a dispute between the husband and the wife, normally the wife is at the receiving end. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. It is well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife is to be seen in such like matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC). In Neelam Kanwar's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court 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.” Considering the facts that petition under Section 127 Cr. P.C. is pending at Tarn Taran; she is saddled with the responsibility of two minor children and primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen, in my opinion, the present application deserves to be allowed. TA No.428 of 2010 3 In view of the above, the application is allowed. The petition filed by the respondent titled `Kewal Singh Vs. Taranjet Kaur' under Section 13-A of of the Act is withdrawn from the court or Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Tarn Taran to the learned District Judge, Amritsar within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.The learned District Judge, Amritsar will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Amritsar on 22.3.2011. 23.2.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: To be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No