TA No. 99 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No. 99 of 2011 Date of decision:30.3.2011 Anita ...Applicant Versus Sanjay ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the applicant. None for the respondent. -.- JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. The applicant-wife has filed the present application for transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') filed by the respondent/husband from District Judge/Family Court, Bhiwani to the court of competent jurisdiction at Kaithal. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is residing at the mercy of her old parents at Kaithal. He further submits that the applicant lodged FIR No. 162 dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) and petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty. Both these cases are prior in time to the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') filed by the respondent at Bhiwani. It has further been submitted that the respondent/husband is of notorious character facing trial in number of cases metioned in para 7 of the TA No. 99 of 2011 2 application. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent is only to harass the applicant. As per office report, service is not complete. However, it appears that respondent is intentionally evading from service. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. From perusal of record, it emerges that the applicant has no independent source of income and is residing at the mercy of her old parents at Village Gadli Patti in District Kaithal. There is no male member in the family to accompany the applicant. The petitions filed by the applicant against the respondent are prior in time and distance between Kaithal and Bbhiwani is more than 150 kms. Keeping in view the composition of the family of the applicant, her financial status and the antecedents of the respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. It is well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife is to be seen in such like matters as has been held in cases of Sumitra Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396, Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC) and Mangla Patil Kale Vs.Sanjeev Kumar, (2003) 10 SCC 280. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The petition filed by the respondent titled `Sanjay vs. Anita' under Section 9 of the Act is withdrawn from the court of learned District Judge/Family Court, Bhiwani and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Kaithal. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Bhiwani to the learned District Judge, Kaithal, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. TA No. 99 of 2011 3 The learned District Judge, Kaithal will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Kaithal, on 28.4.2011. 30.3.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE