TA No.73 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.73 of 2011 Date of decision:24.2.2011 Kiran Buttar ...Applicant Versus Major Tunvir Buttar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.N.S.Dandiwal, Advocate, for the applicant. None for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The application is filed by the wife seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings at Amritsar to Ropar, where she is now residing. The case of the applicant is that case under Section 406/498-A/34 IPC as well as application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. are pending consideration at Ropar and in order to harass the applicant, the respondent filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act). It is further case of the applicant that she is having a minor daughter . Although, the respondent has been served but has not put in appearance in this case. The respondent is proceeded against ex parte. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. From the perusal of record, it emerges the applicant is a resident of District Ropar. The cases filed by the applicant are prior in time TA No.73 of 2011 2 to the case filed by the respondent. The wife is residing at Ropar with her daughter of 3 ½ years old. The respondent is already facing court proceedings at Ropar. In the circumstances, there would be a considerable inconvenience to the wife and the child to visit on each date of hearing to Amritsar which is about 500 kms to and fro. It is the divorce petition of the husband and it should be conducted in a manner which will least trouble the wife. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. It is well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife is to be seen in such like matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396, Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC) and Mangla Patil Kale Vs.Sanjeev Kumar, (2003) 10 SCC 280. Considering the facts that the cases filed by the applicant are prior in time; she is having a minor daughter and primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen, in my opinion, the present application deserves to be allowed. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The petition filed by the respondent titled `Major Tanvir Buttar Vs. Kiran Buttar' under Section 13(1) of the Act is withdrawn from the court of learned District Judge, Amritsar and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ropar. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Amritsar to the learned District Judge, Ropar, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The learned District Judge, Ropar, will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. TA No.73 of 2011 3 Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Ropar, on 24.3.2011. 24.2.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE