TA No.572 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.572 of 2010 Date of decision : 07.03.2011 Paramjit Kaur ...Applicant Versus Jagjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. G.S. Toor, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The applicant, Paramjit Kaur, has filed the present application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, for transfer of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as ‘Jagjit Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur’, which is pending adjudication before the learned District Judge, Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Barnala. 2. On the last date of hearing, notice was issued to the respondent, who is duly served through his mother. However, nobody has caused appearance despite service. Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. TA No.572 of 2010 2 4. From the perusal of the record, it is made out that a criminal case under Section 498-A, 406 IPC dated 6.07.2010, registered at the behest of the applicant, is prior in time than the petition under Section 9 of the Act. The learned counsel for the applicant has brought it to the knowledge of the Court that the child born out of the wedlock between the parties is also with the applicant, who is residing with her parents and has not resources to plead her case at Patiala. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the FIR lodged by the applicant is prior in time, the applicant has been thrown out of the matrimonial home and raising the minor child, therefore, this Court feels that she will not be able to defend her case at Patiala. 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. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Barnala 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. Accordingly, the petition TA No.572 of 2010 3 filed by the respondent titled as ‘Jagjit Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala, deserves to be transferred to Barnala. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Jagjit Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Barnala. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act, shall be sent by the trial Court at Patiala to the learned Incharge District Judge, Barnala, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Barnala, on 02.04.2011. 07.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No