TA No.367 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.367 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.08.2011 Pooja Verma ...Applicant Versus Jatin Anand ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) CM No.21031-CII of 2011 Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. CM application is allowed. CM No.19762-CII of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Annexures R-2/5 to R-2/8 are taken on record. Main case 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 ‘Jatin Anand Vs. Puja Anand’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Ambala, to TA No.367 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the Court of competent jurisdiction at Yamuna Nagar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that on the complaint made by the applicant, FIR No.177 dated 20.12.2010 stands registered against the respondent and his family members under Section 498-A, 323, 324, 406, 506 IPC, at Police Station City Bilaspur. It is forther contended that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned JMIC, Jagadhri. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of District Yamuna Nagar. The purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the ‘Act’ is only to harass the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. It is contended that the applicant concealed the fact of her being married at the time of solemnization of the marriage with the respondent. 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 TA No.367 of 2011 (O&M) 3 there are special reason not to do so. No special reason is shown.” 7. Mrs. Pooja Verma, the applicant-wife, is residing at Yamuna Nagar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Ambala. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor son and having meager source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Yamuna Nagar. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Yamuna Nagar 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. The allegation that the applicant was married at the time of solemnization of the marriage with the respondent is yet to be finally determined. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Jatin Anand Vs. Puja Anand’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Ambala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Yamuna Nagar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Ambala to the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Yamuna Nagar. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, on 30.09.2011. TA No.367 of 2011 (O&M) 4 30.08.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No