T.A. No.326 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No.326 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision. 10.02.2011 Ruby w/o Atul Seth, daughter of Tara Chand Chawla, resident of H.No.848, Street No.12, Patiala District Patiala ......Petitioner Versus Atul Seth son of Shri Sashi Pal Seth, Street Rabochaya-166A/44, DNEPROPEPROVSK, Ukraine, at present resident of 1664/4, Kailash Bhawan, Rajindera Colony, Ambala Road, Kaithal .....Respondent Present: Mr. Lakhwinder S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. In a fire accident at the Record Section of Civil Revision/FAO Branch of this Court on 30.01.2011, several files were burnt. 2. The registry has reported that the file is not available and it is likely that the papers connected with the case have been consumed in fire. Learned counsel for the appellant has furnished copy of all the relevant papers connected with the case. The papers submitted shall substitute the papers that are unavailable and shall constitute for all practical purposes as the records of the court. Papers are duly reconstructed in the above fashion. 3. The application for transfer is by the wife on the ground that T.A. No.326 of 2010 (O&M) -2- there is already a proceeding pending for arrears of maintenance in the court at Patiala and she has also lodged a complaint for offence under Section 498-A IPC with the police and a FIR had been registered. Learned counsel for the husband would state that he has taken objection with reference to the jurisdiction of the police station to register the complaint. He would also state that distance between two places namely the Court at Patiala and Kaithal is only about 65 kms and there is no justification for transfer. 4. The distance of places is not a sole ground for consideration to secure transfer of proceedings in relation to matrimonial disputes between the parties. The fact is that there has been already a proceeding for maintenance at the instance of the wife and that is in my view is sufficient to have the proceedings at the same place. However, it shall be open to the husband to move to the court for appropriate direction for listing all the cases on the same date even if they exist in two different Courts at the same place at Patiala. 5. The application for transfer is allowed. The case, which is now filed at the instance of the husband at Kaithal, is withdrawn and ordered to be transferred to the Court at Patiala. 6. The parties shall appear before the District Court at Patiala on 24.03.2011. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 10, 2011 Pankaj*