TA No.11 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.11 of 2011 Date of decision : 17.03.2011 Gurmit Kaur ...Applicant Versus Jaspreet Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The prayer in the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is for transfer of the petition titled as ‘Jaspreet Singh Vs. Gurmeet Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Malaut, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. 2. Notice issued to the respondent has been served through counsel, however, nobody has caused appearance on his behalf. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the TA No.11 of 2011 2 applicant has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending adjudication before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. The respondent is appearing in the said petition. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant, who is about 19 years of age, is residing with her parents at Bathinda. She has no source of income. There is no one in the family to accompany her to Malaut. The purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant 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, (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. Smt. Gurmit Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Bathinda. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Malout. It would certainly be difficult for the wife who is TA No.11 of 2011 3 living at the mercy of her parents, to attend the court proceedings at Malout. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Bathinda 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. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Jaspreet Singh Vs. Gurmeet Kaur’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malout, deserves to be transferred to Bathinda. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Jaspreet Singh Vs. Gurmeet Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Malout, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act, shall be sent by the trial Court at Malout to the learned District Judge, Bathinda, 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, Bathinda on 25.04.2011. 17.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No