T.A.No.226 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No.226 of 2007. Decided on August 20, 2009. Smt.Manju Hooda .. Petitioner VERSUS Amit Hooda .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is the wife of respondent. She has filed this petition under Section 24 CPC, for transfer of a petition filed by the respondent-husband for a declaration that he is the legal and natural guardian of his daughter Aish, pending in the Court of District Judge, Rohtak, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh, on the ground that a guardianship petition of son and a divorce petition filed by the respondent stand already transferred from Rohtak to Chandigarh, by High Court on 20.11.2007. There are . . . 1 T.A.No.226 of 2007 other allegations also levelled against the respondent and his father who is stated to be a practicing Advocate at Rohtak. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the application for transfer on the ground that it was with the consent of the respondent that the earlier two petitions were transferred to Chandigarh, but on account of conduct of the petitioner, an application for review was filed before this Court to withdraw the consent. Certain personal allegations have also been levelled against the petitioner alleging that she along with her sister is involved in a criminal case, whereas the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the respondent and other family members. Counsel for the respondent has also raised an another argument that under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction to entertain an application in respect of guardianship of minor would be at the place where the minor ordinarily resides. In the present case, the ordinary place of residence of minor is at Rohtak and the jurisdiction lies at Rohtak and there is no ground for transfer of the application out of the State. I have considered the contention of counsel for the respondent, but in view of the fact that other litigation, between the parties, is pending at Chandigarh, it will be in the interest of justice, in case the petition filed by respondent under Guardians and Wards Act, is transferred to Chandigarh. The provisions of Section 9 do not . . . 2 T.A.No.226 of 2007 curtail the doors of a Court under Section 24 CPC. It is expedient, in the interest of justice, if the petition under Guardians and Wards Act, can be transferred from one place to another. Without expression of any opinion regarding the other matrimonial disputes pending between the parties, it is sufficient to observe that the present situation is that petitions for guardianship and divorce are pending at Chandigarh, and a review application filed for recalling the order of transfer of cases was dismissed on 26.09.2008. It is not necessary to adjudicate upon the allegations levelled by the parties against each other but taking into consideration, the comparative convenience of both the parties, the petition for declaration regarding guardianship pending at Rohtak, is ordered to be transferred to Chandigarh. The case file of above said case, complete in all respects, will be sent to the District Judge, Chandigarh. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Chandigarh, on 03.10.2009. The case will be entrusted to the appropriate Court on the said date. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 20, 2009. rka . . . 3