TA No.537 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.537 of 2011 Date of decision : 23.11.2011 Simrat Randhawa ...Applicant Versus Abhi Raj ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate for the respondent. Parties in person. 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 ‘Abhi Raj Singh Randhawa Vs. Simrat Randhawa’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant, after having been constrained to leave her matrimonial home, is residing with her parents at Ludhiana. She is also raising the TA No.537 of 2011 2 minor daughter born out of the wedlock. It is further averred that the applicant is doing her Internship at Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College Hospital and Research Institute, Ludhiana. In the circumstances, it is averred that the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act at Patiala is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. Reply has been filed in the Court which is taken on record. It is contended that the father of the applicant is a retired District Attorney and during most of his service career, he remained at Ludhiana Courts. 5. I have heard the parties who are present in the Court as well as the learned counsel representing them at some length and perused the record. 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 7. Smt. Simrat Randhawa, the applicant-wife, is residing at Ludhiana. The respondent-husband has filed the petition under TA No.537 of 2011 3 Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor daughter, to attend the court proceedings at Patiala, which is at a distance of about 125 kms. from the place of her residence. She is also doing her BDS Internship at Ludhiana. As far as the averments made by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding threat perception is concerned, there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate the allegations. Only because the father of the applicant was a District Attorney at Ludhiana, is not sufficient to hold that he is wielding so much influence so as to falsely implicate the respondent in a criminal case or interfere in the judicial process. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Ludhiana and in a petition filed by the husband against his wife, 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 13 of the Act titled as ‘Abhi Raj Singh Randhawa Vs. Simrat Randhawa’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Patiala, to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, TA No.537 of 2011 4 within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, on 22.12.2011 at 10.00 a.m. 23.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No