TA No.277 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.277 of 2010 Date of decision : 27.01.2011 Sunita ...Applicant Versus Joginder ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Tejveer Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of the petition titled as ‘Joginder Vs. Sunita’, filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short `the Act'), in fact it should have been ‘The Gurdian and Wards Act, 1890’, from the Court of learned District Judge (Family Courts), Hisar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jhajjar. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a resident of Jhajjar and the respondent has filed the petition under Section 25 of the Act solely with a purpose to harass the TA No.277 of 2010 2 applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The applicant is raising her five years’ old child. The father of the applicant in an old person. He would not be able to accompany the applicant to Hisar at the time of hearing. She is a resident of Jhajjar which is at a distance of 130 kms. from Hisar. It would be difficult for the applicant to move from her Village Sariya, District Jhajjar, where she is residing with her minor son. In his petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act (wrongly mentioned as the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act), the husband has admitted that minor Hardik alias Hunny is in custody of the wife at Village Saria, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar. She is improving her qualification as well. As per Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, an application with respect to the guardian of the person of the minor, shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. Prima facie, the District Courts at Jhajjar have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the application under Section 25 of the Act. 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 TA No.277 of 2010 3 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. Considering the fact that the applicant along with his minor son, is residing at Jhajjar, prima facie the District Courts, Jhajjar, have the territorial jurisdiction in the matter and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is on the side of the wife, the applicant. Accordingly, the petition filed by the respondent titled as ‘Joginder Vs. Sunita’ under Section 25 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court), Hisar, deserves to be transferred to Jhajjar. 8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed, petition under Section 25 of the Act titled as ‘Joginder Vs. Sunita’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court), Hisar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jhajjar. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Hisar to learned District Judge, Jhajjar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. The parties shall appear before the Court of District Judge, Jhajjar on 28.02.2011 at 10.00 a.m. 27.01.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) TA No.277 of 2010 4 atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No