TA No.413 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.413 of 2011 Date of decision : 08.09.2011 Shaveta Saini ...Applicant Versus Dinesh Saini ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. As per the endorsement made in the summons, the respondent is not residing at the given address. The learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that in CR No.352 of 2011, filed by the applicant, the respondent was served on the same address and put in appearance in the said petition. Therefore, it is apparent that the respondent is deliberately avoiding service in the instant application. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. 2. 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 ‘Dinesh Saini Vs. Shaveta Saini’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 TA No.413 of 2011 2 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned JMIC, Pathankot, Distt. Gurdaspur. Learned counsel further contends that the applicant is a resident of Pathankot, and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 5. 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.” 6. Mrs. Shaveta Saini, the applicant-wife, is residing at Pathankot, Distt. Gurdaspur. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Ludhiana, which is at a TA No.413 of 2011 3 distance of about 170 kms. from the place of her residence. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, 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. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Dinesh Saini Vs. Shaveta Saini’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Ludhiana, to the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur. 9. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, on 12.10.2011. 08.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No