TA No.4 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.4 of 2011 Date of decision:19.4.2011 Veena ...Applicant Versus Sanjay ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate, for the applicant. None for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicant/wife for the transfer of the matrimonial proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat to the court of competent jurisdiction at Mansa. Notice of motion was issued on 4.1.2011 and repeated efforts were made to effect service upon the respondent. As per the last report furnished by the Registry on 1.4.2011, the respondent is not appearing before the trial Court at Mansa for the last two dates. It appears that the respondent is intentionally evading from service. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the wife/applicant was thrown out of the matrimonial home about 3 ½ years TA No.4 of 2011 2 back alongwith three minor children. She has already lost her parents and residing at the mercy of her brother. It has further been submitted that after solemnization of marriage, the husband/respondent treated the applicant with considerable mental and physical cruelty. To save herself from further torture, the applicant preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Act. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act only with a view to harass the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. From the perusal of the file, it emerges that the applicant is residing at the mercy of her brother at Mansa and is saddled with the responsibility of three minor children. She has no source of income. Moreover, the distance between Mansa to Panipat is about 250 kms. The petition filed by the applicant is prior in time to the petition filed by the respondent. In the circumstances, there would be a considerable inconvenience to the wife and the children to visit on each date of hearing to Panipat which is about 500 kms to and fro. In a dispute between the husband and the wife, normally the wife is at a 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, Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC) and Mangla Patil Kale Vs.Sanjeev Kumar, (2003) 10 SCC 280. Keeping in view the facts that the applicant has no source of TA No.4 of 2011 3 income; she is residing at the mercy of her brother alongwith three raising minor children and primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen, in my opinion, the present application deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The petition filed by the respondent titled `Sanjay Vs. Veena under Section 9 of the Act is withdrawn from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Mansa. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Panipat to the learned District Judge, Mansa, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned District Judge, Mansa, will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Mansa, on 19.5.2011. 19.4.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE