TA No.135 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.135 of 2011 Date of decision : 19.04.2011 Manjeet Kaur …Applicant Versus Som Nath ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant. Respondent ex parte. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The applicant wife, Manjit Kaur, has filed the present transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), titled as ‘Som Nath Vs. Manjeet Kaur’, filed by the respondent from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that earlier also, the applicant was ousted from her matrimonial home, however, a compromise was reached between the parties and the applicant joined the company of the respondent. Thereafter, the applicant was again TA No.135 of 2011 2 thrown out of the matrimonial home on 27.11.2010 along with her two minor children. 3. The learned counsel further contends that the applicant is a resident of Village Jamshar, Distt. Jalandhar. She is also maintaining her two children. She is not in any employment and is living at the mercy of her old parents. It is further averred that she has no means to travel and attend the Court proceedings at Ludhiana. 4. Notice was issued to the respondent through the learned counsel, Mr. P.S. Batra, Advocate, representing him in the trial Court at Ludhiana. As per the office report, service upon the respondent stands effected, however, nobody has caused appears on his behalf. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 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. Manjeet Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Village Jamshar, Distt. Jalandhar. The respondent-husband filed a petition TA No.135 of 2011 3 under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her young children, to attend the court proceedings at Ludhiana. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is resident of Distt. 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. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Som Nath Vs. Manjeet Kaur’ under Section 9 of the Act, is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, 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 Ludhiana 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. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Jalandhar, on 19.05.2011. 19.04.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No