TA No.112 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.112 of 2011 Date of decision : 14.03.2011 Smt. Geeta Devi ...Applicant Versus Chander Mohan ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred by the applicant-wife, Geeta Devi seeking transfer of petition titled as ‘Chander Mohan Vs. Geeta Devi’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance which was ex parte allowed vide judgment dated 14.12.2010. Thereafter, the applicant filed execution proceedings TA No.112 of 2011 2 which are pending adjudication before the Court of learned JMIC, Panchkula. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Village Rataur, P.S. Raipur Rani Tehsil Naraingarh, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband and his family members. 4. The service of the respondent is complete by way of affixation. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. 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. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, two petitions filed at the behest of the applicant-wife are already pending at Panchkula and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the TA No.112 of 2011 3 balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as “Chander Mohan Vs. Geeta Devi” under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, deserves to be transferred to Panchkula. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act titled as “Chander Mohan Vs. Geeta Devi” is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, to the learned District Judge, Panchkula, 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, Panchkula on 18.04.2011. 14.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No