TA No.263 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.263 of 2011 Date of decision : 10.05.2011 Chhinder Pal Kaur ...Applicant Versus Nirmal Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deep Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. 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 ‘Nirmal Singh Vs. Chinderpal Kaur’, 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.), Mansa, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned JMIC Bathinda, which is prior in time. As a counter- TA No.263 of 2011 2 blast, the respondent has moved the petition under Section 9 of the Act. It is further contended that the applicant was ousted from the matrimonial home and is residing at Bathinda at the mercy of her parents. The distance between the two stations is more than 75 kms. The purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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. It is a matter of record that the applicant-wife is residing at Bathinda. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Mansa. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, saddled with the responsibility of raising her TA No.263 of 2011 3 minor children and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Mansa. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Bathinda 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 ‘Nirmal Singh Vs. Chinderpal Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Mansa, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Mansa to the learned District Judge, Bathinda, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda on 10.06.2011. 10.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No