TA No.144 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.144 of 2011 Date of decision : 27.04.2011 Preeti Bala ...Applicant Versus Sandeep Wadhwa ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Preteek Pandit, 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 ‘Sandeep Wadhwa Vs. Preeti Bala’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kapurthala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the complaint, on the basis of which FIR No.73 dated 17.07.2010, has been registered at Police TA No.144 of 2011 2 Station Goraya, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar, are prior in time. The petition under Section 9 of the Act has been subsequently filed by the respondent at Kapurthala, with a view to harass the applicant. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously opposed the prayer on the ground that the applicant herself left the matrimonial home and falsely roped the respondent in the FIR under Section 406, 498-A, IPC. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. 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.” 6. The applicant-wife is residing at Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. The respondent-husband filed petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kapurthala. 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 Kapurthala. TA No.144 of 2011 3 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar, 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. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Sandeep Wadhwa Vs. Preeti Bala’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kapurthala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act, shall be sent by the trial Court at Kapurthala, to the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, within three weeks. 9. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, on 27.05.2011. 27.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No