TA No.51 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.51 of 2011 Date of decision : 29.03.2011 Kirandeep Kaur ...Applicant Versus Baljit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Smt. Kirandeep Kaur, the applicant-wife has preferred the instant 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 ‘Baljit Singh vs. Kirandeep Kaur’, filed by the respondent, from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Zira, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. TA No.51 of 2011 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a complaint under Sections 12(1), 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance, which are pending adjudication before the Court of learned JMIC, Patiala. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Patiala and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent-husband. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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. Smt. Kirandeep Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Patiala. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Zira. It would certainly be difficult for the wife to attend the TA No.51 of 2011 3 court proceedings at Zira which is at a distance of about 150 kms. from her place. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Patiala 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 filed by the respondent titled as ‘Baljit Singh Vs. Kirandeep Kaur’ under Section 9 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Zira, deserves to be transferred to Patiala. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Baljit Singh Vs. Kirandeep Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Zira, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Zira to the learned District Judge, Patiala, 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, Patiala, on 26.04.2011. 29.03.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No