TA No.270 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.270 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.05.2011 Sukhpreet Kaur @ Gurpreet Kaur ...Applicant Versus Nirmal Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.S. Sidhu, 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 ‘Nirmal Singh Vs. Sukhpreet Kaur @ Gurpreet Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Sections 11 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. 2. The learned counsel contends that criminal proceedings in FIR No.94 dated 16.04.2006 registered under Sections 328/498-A/34 IPC, are pending against the respondent at Malaut. TA No.270 of 2011 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Faridkot and the purpose of filing the petition under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. Vide CM No.14047-CII of 2011, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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. The applicant-wife is residing at Faridkot. The respondent- husband filed a petition under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, who is maintaining her minor daughter and being without resources, to attend the court proceedings at Muktsar. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Faridkot and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, TA No.270 of 2011 3 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 Sections 11 and 13 of the Act titled as ‘Nirmal Singh Vs. Sukhpreet Kaur @ Gurpreet Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Muktsar to the learned District Judge, Faridkot, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Faridkot, on 23.07.2011. 27.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No