TA No. 74 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh TA No. 74 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision :12.8.2010 Smt. Raj Kumari ..... Applicant vs Baljit Singh ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the application is for transfer of the divorce petition filed by the husband at Sonepat to Kurukshetra. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the wife in the present case is living with the minor child. Two proceedings against the respondent-husband are pending at Kurukshetra, namely, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Section 406, 498-A IPC. The divorce petition has been filed by the husband thereafter at Sonepat. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that earlier the husband had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in which the wife appeared and the case remained pending for 4-5 years but ultimately she refused to join the company of the respondent and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Even application filed by the wife for transfer of the aforesaid petition for restitution of conjugal rights, was dismissed in default in this court. Further it was submitted that, in fact, in the divorce petition which was filed by the husband the evidence of the husband is already over and the case was fixed for the evidence of the wife. The present application for transfer thereof was filed only with a view to harass the respondent and delay the disposal thereof. Once she has already engaged a counsel there and even contested the application for maintenance filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is no reason for transfer of the divorce petition to Kurukshetra at this stage. Prayer was for dismissal of the application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the application filed by the applicant-wife deserves to be dismissed. Transfer has been TA No. 74 of 2010 -2- sought of the divorce petition filed by the husband at Sonepat at the stage when the evidence of the husband was already over and the evidence of the wife was to be led. Further even maintenance of ` 7,500/- per month had also been fixed payable to the wife in an application filed by her before the court at Sonepat. Once the wife is contesting the divorce petition for more than a year at Sonepat, there is no reason for transferring the same to Kurukshetra at this stage. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 12.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge