T.A. No. 145 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.7.2010. (1) Transfer Application No. 145 of 2010 (O&M) Neelam Rani ... Applicant v. Parveen Kumar .. Respondent (2) Transfer Application No. 146 of 2010 (O&M) Neelam Rani ... Applicant v. Parveen Kumar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N. K. Sanghi, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned two applications filed by the wife seeking transfer of the petitions, i.e., one filed for custody of the child and the other filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the respondent from Sirsa to Karnal. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife submitted that distance between the two places is about 200 kilometers. The wife having been shunted out from the matrimonial home is presently residing with her parents in village Jundla, District Karnal. The child is also studying in class-III in a school at Jundla. It is always the convenience of the wife, which is to be seen. He further submitted that minor son, whose custody is involved in one of the cases pending before the court below, may have to appear in the court, as the court may consider his wish also for the purpose of decision of case regarding custody. The prayer is for transfer of both the petitions pending in the court below from Sirsa to Karnal. Reliance was placed upon Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Smt. Vandana Garg v. Sanjay Kumar Garg, (2005-3) PLR 717. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present applications have been filed by the wife just with a view to harass the T.A. No. 145 of 2010 [ 2] respondent-husband. In fact, she is a government teacher, who is posted in a village near Sirsa. Even the son was studying in a public school at Sirsa, however, she had forcibly taken him in December, 2009 from the school. She had earlier filed a complaint before the Women Cell at Karnal. However, the same was referred to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa for further action considering the fact that the applicant-wife was not appearing before the Women Cell at Karnal and further it was noticed that the dispute also pertained to Sirsa. Last but not the least, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent-husband was that during the pendency of the present proceedings before this court, the applicant- wife filed a suit on behalf of her son-Himanshu against his grand father in the court at Sirsa on 30.6.2010, claiming share in the property owned by the grand- father, i.e., father of her husband, showing themselves to be the residents of village Bharokha, He submitted that from the aforesaid facts, it was established that object of the applicant-wife is to grab the property of her husband. This was even noticed by the Women Cell at Karnal by referring the complaint to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa. Prayer was for dismissal of the applications. At the time of hearing, the applicant-wife was present in court in person. The factum of filing of suit by her on behalf of her minor son at Sirsa on 30.6.2010 claiming share in the property owned by the father of the respondent- husband was not disputed by her. It was further not disputed that in the plaint so filed, she had given her residential address of village Bharokha, District Sirsa. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the mere fact that even after filing of the present applications before this court raising number of grounds, the applicant-wife had filed a suit on behalf of her minor son at Sirsa against his grand father (father of the respondent-husband) claiming share in the property in which her residential address was of village Bharokha, District Sirsa, the prayer made in the present applications seeking transfer of the petitions filed by the husband regarding custody of the child and also for restitution of conjugal rights are totally mis-conceived. When the wife can go to Sirsa to file a suit on behalf of her minor son, there is no reason to accept that she cannot go there to defend the other two petitions filed by the husband at Sirsa. Accordingly, the present applications are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.7.2010 mk