TA No.154 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.154 of 2011 Date of decision : 03.05.2011 Jaswinder Kaur ...Applicant Versus Parminder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.S. Dhami, 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 ‘Parminder Singh Vs. Jaswinder Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dasuya, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was thrown out of the matrimonial home in the year 2002. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of in view of the statement of the respondent TA No.154 of 2011 2 herein to the effect that the applicant will not be harassed and humiliated by him in future and he would also pay `2,500/- per month to her. Consequently, the applicant joined the company of the husband. However, again in November, 2003, the applicant was ousted from the matrimonial home and since then, she is living with her parents at Kapurthala. It has been further averred that the respondent-husband is already facing execution proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Kapurthala. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Distt. Kapurthala and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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. Jaswinder Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Distt. Kapurthala. The respondent-husband filed a petition under TA No.154 of 2011 3 Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Civil Judge, Dasuya. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor children, to attend the court proceedings at Dasuya. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Distt. Kapurthala, 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. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Parminder Singh Vs. Jaswinder Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dasuya, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Dasuya to the learned District Judge, Kapurthala, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Kapurthala, on 03.06.2011. 03.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No