TA No.438 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.438 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.02.2011 Gurdeep Kaur …Applicant Versus Ranjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S S Gill, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Gopal Singh Nahal, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition titled as ‘Ranjit Singh Vs. Gurdeep Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur (exercising the powers of District Judge under the Act), to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent, with a view to harass the applicant, earlier filed petition under Section 13 of the Act in the year 2007, which was subsequently withdrawn. The applicant was thrown out of the matrimonial home and TA No.438 of 2010 2 she is residing with her parents since 2007. The applicant has filed a complaint under Section 406, 498 IPC, which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Divisional Magistrate, Samana. The applicant has apprehension that the respondent might eliminate her in case she goes to Sangrur to contest the matter. The young son born out of the wedlock is also residing with the applicant. The learned counsel further states that the applicant is living at the mercy of her old parents. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the whole family has been falsely implicated in the complaint under Section 406, 498 IPC and suffering trial at Samana. The apprehension regarding threat expressed by the applicant is without any basis. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From the facts on record, it is made out that the respondent earlier filed petition under Section 13 of the Act which was subsequently withdrawn. The applicant was thrown out of her matrimonial house and she was constrained to file complaint under Section 406, 498 IPC at Samana. The applicant has also addressed a complaint dated 22.04.2010 (Annexure P2), to the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, regarding the threats given by certain unidentified persons while she had gone to attend the proceedings at Sangrur. The applicant is residing at the Patiala at the mercy of her parents. She is also raising her young child. She has no resources to defend the case at Sangrur, whereas the respondent owns a shop at Sangrur. TA No.438 of 2010 3 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 Patiala 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 ‘Ranjit Singh Vs. Gurdeep Kaur’, under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, deserves to be transferred to Patiala. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Ranjit Singh Vs. Gurdeep Kaur’, is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Sangrur to the learned District Judge, Patiala, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of District Judge, TA No.438 of 2010 4 Patiala on 14.03.2011. 15.02.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No