TA No.271 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.271 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.01.2011 Meena ...Applicant Versus Surender ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R A Sheoran, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of petition titled as ‘Surender Vs. Meena’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. 2. As per office report, service is complete, however, none has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed criminal complainant under Sections 498-A, 406, TA No.271 of 2010 2 343, 342, 506 IPC, against the respondent, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. She had also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance which was decided and Rs.1500/- per month were fixed for maintenance in which the execution proceedings are pending adjudication before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Bhiwani and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant apprehends threat to her life at the hands of the respondent. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 6. 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.” 7. Meena, applicant-wife, is residing at Bhiwani. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, to attend the court proceedings at TA No.271 of 2010 3 Rohtak. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Bhiwani and primarily the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Surender V. Meena’ under Section 13 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, deserves to be transferred to Bhiwani. 9. Accordingly, the instant transfer application is allowed, the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Surender Vs Meena’ is withdrawn from the Court of Additional District Judge, Rohtak, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Rohtak to the learned District Judge, Bhiwani, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge at Bhiwani on 17.02.2011. 14.01.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No