TA No.447 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.447 of 2011 Date of decision : 05.09.2011 Priya Labroo ...Applicant Versus Rahul Labroo ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Pankaj Middha, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. As per the report regarding service, the respondent has been served through his mother, however, none has caused appearance on his behalf. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 2. 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 ‘Rahul Labroo Vs. Priya Labroo’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Gurgaon, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that three petitions, viz. petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., under Section 9 of TA No.447 of 2011 2 the Hindu Marriage Act, and under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, filed at the instance of the applicant, are pending before the competent Courts as Jind, in which the respondent is already appearing. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that after having been ousted from the matrimonial home, she is residing with her parents at Jind, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 7. Mrs. Priya Labroo, the applicant-wife, is residing at Jind. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Gurgaon. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents who themselves are very old, to attend the court proceedings at Gurgaon, which is at a distance of about 200 kms. from the place of her TA No.447 of 2011 3 residence. Moreover, the respondent is already appearing in three petitions filed by the applicant at Jind. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Jind 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 13 of the Act titled as ‘Rahul Labroo Vs. Priya Labroo’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Gurgaon, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Gurgaon, to the learned District Judge, Jind, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Jind, on 22.10.2011. 05.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No