T.A. No. 232 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No. 232 of 2011. Date of decision 22.7.2011 Renu Rani Applicant vs. Balraj Kumar Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. G.S.Punia,Advocate for the applicant Mr.G.S.Toor,Advocate for the respondent …. JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (ORAL) This application has been filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of the petition filed by husband-respondent, titled “Balraj Kumar v. Renu Rani” under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, (for short the Act) pending adjudication in the Court of Additional District Judge, Barnala to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife submits that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 9.8.2002. The behaviour T.A. No. 232 of 2011 2 of the respondent and his family members remained rude throughout, towards the applicant. She was subjected to cruelty for bringing less dowry. The applicant wife was ousted from the matrimonial home on 14.4.2010. He states that the applicant wife has filed petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,2005, on 22.11.2010 and as a counter blast, the husband has filed petition under section 13 of the Act at Ludhiana, on 29.3.2011, to harass the applicant. The applicant is presently residing at Ludhiana at the mercy of her parents. The father of the applicant is heart patient and there is no male member in the family to accompany her to Barnala to defend her case. Learned counsel for the respondent has not controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. It emerges from the record that the applicant wife is presently residing at Ludhiana at the mercy of her old parents. There is no male member in the family to accompany her to Barnala, to persue the case filed by the respondent. The petition filed by the applicant-wife, is prior in time. It is well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife has to be kept in view in such like matters as has been held in cases T.A. No. 232 of 2011 3 of Sumitra Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR,2002, SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2000(43) AIR 129. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the petition filed by the husband, under section 13 of the Act, to a court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petition titled “Balraj Kumar v. Renu Rani” under section 13 of the Act pending in the court of Additional District Judge,Barnala is withdrawn and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The file shall be sent by the trial Court to the court of District Judge,Ludhiana within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, who will either himself dispose of the same or entrust the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. This application is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Ludhiana on 24.8.2011. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 22.7.2011 MS Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No