TA No.313 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.313 of 2010 Date of decision :13.01.2011 Kamaldeep Kaur ...Applicant Versus Manjeet Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. KBS Mann, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. This is an application for transfer of petition titled as ‘Manjeet Singh Vs. Kamaldeep Kaur’, 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, Bathinda, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the TA No.313 of 2010 2 applicant is a resident of Faridkot and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has to look after two minor children and there is no other male member to support them. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. Reply has been filed in the Court today and the same is taken on record. It has been contended that the distance is same from the village of the applicant to Bathinda as well as Faridkot. Therefore, it will not make any difference to the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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. Kamaldeep Kaur, applicant-wife, is residing at Faridkot. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, to attend the court proceedings at Bathinda. The applicant is saddled with the responsibility of two minor children. TA No.313 of 2010 3 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Faridkot and primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Manjeet Singh V. Kamaldeep Kaur’ under Section 13 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, deserves to be transferred to Faridkot. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Manjeet Singh Vs Kamaldeep Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Bathinda to learned District Judge, Faridkot, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction/District Judge at Faridkot on 16.02.2011. 11. Since the main application stands allowed, the CM application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. 13.01.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No