TA No.393 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.393 of 2011 Date of decision : 05.10.2011 Aarti Narula ...Applicant Versus Sanjay Kumar Narula ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.C. Kapoor, 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 ‘Sanjay Kumar Vs. Aarti Narula’, 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, Yamunanagar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. 2 Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the respondent is residing at Jalandhar and the petition under Section 9 of the Act has been filed at Yamunanagar, only with a view to harass the applicant. This fact is further substantiated from the perusal of the summons which were received by the respondent at Jalandhar. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently TA No.393 of 2011 - 2 - opposed the prayer. 4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the 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. Aarti, the applicant-wife, is residing at Jalandhar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge, Yamunanagar. The service effected upon the respondent at Jalandhar indicates that he is residing there and chose to file the petition in question at Yamunanagar. In the circumstance, it would certainly be difficult for the wife to attend the court proceedings at Yamunanagar, as there is nobody to accompany her. 7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Jalandhar, 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 TA No.393 of 2011 - 3 - allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Aarti Narula Vs. Sanjay Kumar Narula’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Yamunanagar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Yamuna Nagar, to the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. 9. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, on 5.11.2011. 05.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulseth JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No