TA No.470 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.470 of 2011 Date of decision : 13.09.2011 Parminder Kumari ...Applicant Versus Varinder Kumar Salaria ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, ‘the Code’) is for transfer of Applicant No.6 of 2008 titled as ‘Varinder Kumar Vs. Parminder Kaur’, filed by the applicant under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 23.4.2009, passed in Matrimonial case HMA No.111 dated 17.12.2008, titled as ‘Varinder Kumar Salaria Vs. Parminder Kaur’, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short, ‘the Act’). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. TA No.470 of 2011 2 The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the ex parte decree was secured by mis-stating the facts. The respondent furnished incorrect address with an oblique motive to secure ex parte decree against the applicant. It is averred that at the relevant time, the applicant was resident of House No.96, Ashoka Garden, Maqsudan, Jalandhar, whereas, in the petition under Section 13 of the Act, the applicant was shown to be resident of House No.79, New Jawala Nagar, Maqsudan, Jalandhar. The applicant is presently residing at House No.23, Sudarshan Park, Nandanpur Road, Maqsudan, Jalandhar. It is further submitted that in fact, the name of the applicant is Parminder Kumari, while in the divorce petition, her name was reflected as Parminder Kaur. It is asserted that the same was done to procure ex parte decree against the applicant. The applicant was in fact never served, nor did she at any point of time had knowledge of the divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Act moved by the respondent. From the record it is further made out that FIR No.138 dated 13.7.2008, under Section 406, 498-A IPC, filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., are pending adjudication at Jalandhar, which are prior in time. The distance between the two stations is stated to be more than 60 kms. The applicant is also saddled with the responsibility of raising her four years old child born out of the wedlock, it would be TA No.470 of 2011 3 difficult for her to go and effectively contest her case at Jalandhar. The applicant is presently residing at Jalandhar. The respondent-husband has filed the petition at Ludhiana. In a petition filed by the husband, the convenience of the wife cannot be ignored. Keeping in view the allegation made by the applicant, which is apparent from the record, it would be in the interest of justice if the present application is allowed and the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code is withdrawn from the trial Court at Ludhiana and shifted to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar, so that the wife, who is maintaining her four year’s old child, is able to contest the case effectively. Ordered accordingly. The entire record pertaining to the application No.6 of 2008, under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code titled as ‘Varinder Kumar Vs. Parminder Kaur’, 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 at Jalandhar. The judicial file of HMA Case No.111 of 17.12.2008 titled as 'Varinder Kumar Salaria vs. Parminder Kaur' decided on 23.4.2009 be also sent alongwith the application. The parties through their counsel shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar, on 22.10.2011. 13.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No