TA No.483 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.483 of 2011 Date of decision : 13.12.2011 Monika ...Applicant Versus Sanjeev Chhabra ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None for the applicant. Mr. Naveen Sharma, 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 ‘Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Smt. Monika’, 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., Ferozepur, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. 2. None has caused appearance on behalf of the applicant. 3. A perusal of the file reveals that after having been compelled to leave the matrimonial home, the applicant is residing at the mercy of her parents at Sirsa. She is also maintaining the minor TA No.483 of 2011 2 child born out of the wedlock. The respondent and his family members are facing criminal trial under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 read with Section 34 IPC, at Sirsa. It has been averred that the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent at Ferozepur is a counterblast to the criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 7. The applicant-wife is residing at Sirsa. The respondent- husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Ferozepur. In the petition filed by the husband, trial should be held at the place which is least inconvenient to the wife. The distance between Ferozepur and Sirsa is about 180 kms. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, TA No.483 of 2011 3 living at the mercy of her parents, saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor child and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Ferozepur. The respondent-husband is already appearing in the criminal proceedings before the competent Court at Sirsa. Thus, 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 ‘Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Smt. Monika’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Ferozepur, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Ferozepur to the learned District Judge, Sirsa, within two weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa. 9. The parties, through their counsel, shall appear before the learned District Judge, Sirsa, on 21.01.2012 at 10.00 a.m. 13.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No