TA No.480 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.480 of 2010 Date of decision : 12.09.2011 Simranjit Kaur ...Applicant Versus Gurvinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, 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 ‘Gurvinder Singh Vs. Simranjit 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., Amritsar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that two petitions, i.e., petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the complaint under Section 406, 498-A, IPC, filed by the applicant, are pending TA No.480 of 2010 2 before the Court of learned JMIC, Patiala, which are prior in time. The petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Act is a counterblast thereto and is an effort to prevent the applicant from pursuing the petitions filed by her. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 4. From the averments made, it appears that the applicant has not been given a fair deal by the husband. The applicant is residing at the mercy of her parents at Patiala. She is unemployed. The distance between the two stations is more than 260 kms. 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. Simranjit Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Patiala. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Amritsar. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the TA No.480 of 2010 3 court proceedings at Amritsar, which is at a distance of about 260 kms. from the place of her residence. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Patiala, and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent-husband. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Gurvinder Singh Vs. Simranjit Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Amritsar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at 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 at Patiala. 9. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Patiala, on 22.10.2011 at 10 AM. 12.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No