TA No.325 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.325 of 2011 Date of decision : 11.07.2011 Ravinder Kaur ...Applicant Versus Gurmail Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Parshant Bansal, Advocate for the applicant. 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 ‘Gurmail Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), along with the petition under Section 24 of the Act, filed by the applicant in the aforesaid petition, from the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rajpura. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending adjudication before the Court of JMIC, Rajpura. The learned counsel TA No.325 of 2011 2 further contends that criminal proceedings under Section 406/498-A read with Section 120-B, IPC, are also pending adjudication at Rajpura. 3. The applicant is a resident of Rajpura, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. None has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent/husband despite service. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant 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. Ravinder Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Rajpura. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Judge, Ludhiana. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Ludhiana, which is at a distance of about 100 kms. TA No.325 of 2011 3 from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Rajpura, 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 9 of the Act titled as ‘Gurmail Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur’, along with the petition under Section 24 of the Act, are withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rajpura. The entire record pertaining to the petitions under Section 9 and 24 of the Act, shall be sent by the trial Court at Ludhiana, to the learned In-charge District Judge, Patiala, within three weeks, who will entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Rajpura. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Patiala, on 12.08.2011. 11.07.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No