TA No.357 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.357 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.12.2011 Rajwinder Kaur ...Applicant Versus Amarjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant- wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition titled as ‘Amarjit Singh versus Rajwinder Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends after having been ousted from the matrimonial home in October, 2005, the applicant TA No.357 of 2011 (O&M) 2 is residing at her parental home. The proceedings in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant are pending adjudication before the Court of learned JMIC, Tarn Taran. The respondent is also facing criminal trial under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC, at Tarn Taran. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Village Fatehabad, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran. The sole purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act is to harass the applicant. She also apprehends threat to her life and liberty at the hands of the respondent and his family members. 4. None has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.” 7. The applicant-wife along with her son, aged about six TA No.357 of 2011 (O&M) 3 years, is residing at the mercy of her parents at District Tarn Taran. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Jagraon. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Jagraon, which is at a distance of about 150 kms. from the place of her residence. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of District Tarn Taran, 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 under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Amarjit Singh Vs. Rajvinder Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Jagraon, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Jagraon, to the Incharge District Judge, Tarn Taran, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Tarn Taran. 10. The parties, through their counsel, shall appear before the Incharge District Judge, Tarn Taran, on 23.12.2011 at 10.00 a.m. TA No.357 of 2011 (O&M) 4 02.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No