TA No.471 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.471 of 2011 Date of decision : 14.09.2011 Arvinder Kaur ...Applicant Versus Prabhjeet Singh Saluja ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.K. Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 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 ‘Prabhjeet Singh Vs. Arvinder Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Nawanshahr. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant-wife has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending before the Court of learned SDJM, Nawanshahr. It is further TA No.471 of 2011 2 contended that after having been ousted from the matrimonial home, the applicant is residing at the mercy of her old father at Banga, Distt. Nawanshahr. The applicant is saddled with the responsibility of raising her two minor children, born out of wedlock. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that in TA No.453 of 2011, moved by the applicant, this Court, vide order dated 07.09.2011, has transferred the petition filed by the respondent- husband under Sections 7 and 25 of the Act, from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Nawanshahr. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. The reply has been filed in the Court, the same is taken on 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, convenience-wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 6. Smt. Arvinder Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Nawanshahr. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. TA No.471 of 2011 3 Divn., Patiala. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her two minor children, to attend the court proceedings at Patiala. Moreover, vide order dated 07.09.2011, this Court has already transferred the petition filed by the husband under the Guardians and Wards Act, from Patiala to Nawanshahr. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Nawanshahr, 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 9 of the Act titled as ‘Prabhjeet Singh Vs. Arvinder Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Patiala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Nawanshahr. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act, shall be sent by the trial Court at Patiala, to the learned District Judge, Nawanshahr, within three weeks, who will either dispose it of himself as per law or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Nawanshahr, on 22.10.2011, at 10.00 AM. 14.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No TA No.471 of 2011 4