TA No.132 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.132 of 2011 Date of decision : 26.04.2011 Jyoti ...Applicant Versus Saurabh Bajaj ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. G.B.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. 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 ‘Shri Saurabh Bajaj Vs. Smt. Jyoti’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dera Bassi, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the respondent has already been appearing before the Courts at Ludhiana in the two petitions filed at the instance of the applicant. He further contends that the applicant has been thrown out of the matrimonial TA No.132 of 2011 2 home and residing at the mercy of her parents. She has no means to travel from Dera Bassi to Ludhiana, which is at a distance of about 140 kms. The applicant is also maintaining the young child born out of the wedlock between the parties. He has further contended that the applicant is without any resources and not getting any maintenance from the respondent. 3. Nobody has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 5. 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.” 6. Smt. Jyoti, the applicant-wife, is residing at Ludhiana. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dera Bassi. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the TA No.132 of 2011 3 responsibility of raising her minor child, to attend the court proceedings at Dera Bassi. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Ludhiana 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. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Shri Saurabh Bajaj Vs. Smt. Jyoti’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dera Bassi and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Dera Bassi to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana, on 26.05.2011. 26.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No