T.A. No.332 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No.332 of 2010 Date of Decision. 19.01.2011 Promila wife of Sanjeev Kumar d/o Shiv Dayal (aged 28 years) resident of village Ratgal near Post Office Colony, Sector 7, Kurukshetra ...... Petitioner Versus Sanjiv Kumar son of Sarup Singh aged 30 years resident of village and post office Bharali Distt. Panchkula-Pal Garments, Maan Market Barwala Distt. Panchkula. ......Respondent Present: Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The application is for transfer on the ground that the wife has already filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights before the Court at Kurukshetra and therefore, the case filed by husband which is now pending at Panchkula may be transferred to the Court at Kurukshetra. I find that the case filed by the wife was subsequent to the petition for divorce filed by the husband at Panchkula. Learned counsel for the applicant refers me to a decision of this Court in Milli Vs. Mukesh Kumar 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 422 that the convenience of wife has to be given paramount consideration. The case was considered in the context to a transfer of proceeding which was pending at Amritsar when yet T.A. No.332 of 2010 -2- another case was pending at Jagadhari. The convenience of parties, which could be paramount must again relate to situations which are peculiar to each case. I cannot take that to be a general proposition of law emerging in every situation. If a convenience must be the only ground for a transfer, we will have to rewrite the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act constituting the Court not of jurisdiction but Courts of convenience for parties. 2. I cannot accommodate such a plea and it shall be always open to the wife to apply to the Court for appropriate relief for maintenance and if such an application is moved, the Court shall consider the case and dispose of the petition by an order immediately before calling upon the wife to file a defence. 3. The distance between the Panchkula and Kurukshetra is 100 kms and I do not find it a formidable distance in these days for a proceeding to transfer on the issue of inconvenience. Learned counsel for the applicant states that there is a threat to life for applicant. This is more a statement to create a reason than a matter of substance borne out through any record. I, therefore, reject the prayer for transfer. 4. Transfer application is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE January 19, 2011 Pankaj*