TA No.86 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.86 of 2011 Date of decision : 26.04.2011 Anju alias Savita Rani alias Sushma ...Applicant Versus Ajay Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. C.M. Munjal, 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 ‘Ajay Kumar Vs. Anju @ Savita Rani @ Sushma’, filed by the respondent under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Fatehabad. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is residing at Fatehabad after she was thrown out of her matrimonial home in July, 2009 and the purpose of filing the petition TA No.86 of 2011 2 under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. The father of the applicant is an aged person and there is no other male member in the family to accompany her to Faridkot to attend the proceedings. The distance between two places is about 150 kms. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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. Smt. Anju, the applicant-wife, is residing at Fatehabad. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot. 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 minor daughter, to attend the court proceedings at Faridkot. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Fatehabad and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, TA No.86 of 2011 3 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 Sections 12 and 13 of the Act titled as ‘Ajay Kumar Vs. Anju @ Savita Rani @ Sushma’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Fatehabad. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Faridkot to the learned District Judge, Fatehabad, 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 learned District Judge, Fatehabad, on 26.05.2011. 26.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No