TA No.292 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.292 of 2011 Date of decision : 13.07.2011 Pooja Gupta ...Applicant Versus Deepak Bansal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. J.S. Saneta, 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 ‘Deepak Bansal Vs. Mrs. Pooja Gupta’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short `the Act') from the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kurukshetra. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, Kurukshetra. Learned counsel further contends that on the complaint of the applicant, FIR No.81 of 17.3.2011, has been lodged at TA No.292 of 2011 2 Kurukshetra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Kurukshetra and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. A perusal of the office report would reveal that the respondent is deliberately avoiding service. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 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, 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.” 7. Mrs. Pooja Gupta, the applicant-wife, is residing at Kurukshtra. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Chandigarh. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Chandigarh, which is at a distance of about 100 kms. from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Kurukshetra and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, TA No.292 of 2011 3 therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Deepak Bansal Vs. Mrs. Pooja Gupta’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kurukshetra. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Chandigarh to the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Kurukshetra. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kurukshetra, on 12.08.2011. 13.07.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No