TA No.444 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.444 of 2009 Date of decision : 15.02.2011 Sandeep ...Applicant Versus Harpreet Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition titled as ‘Harpreet Singh Vs. Sandeep’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Barnala. 2. None has caused appearance on behalf of the parties. 3. A bare perusal of the file would reveal that the applicant is residing at Dhanaula. She has no other male member to accompany her to Ludhiana to defend her case. She is unemployed and does not have any resources. The applicant is also saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor son. 4. As per the office report, service of the respondent is complete, however, none has put in appearance on his behalf. TA No.444 of 2009 2 Accordingly, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 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. Sandeep, applicant-wife, is residing at Barnala. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor son, to attend the court proceedings at Ludhiana. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Barnala 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 ‘Harpreet Singh Vs. Sandeep’ under Section 13 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, deserves to be transferred to Barnala. 9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as TA No.444 of 2009 3 ‘Harpreet Singh Vs. Sandeep’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Barnala. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Ludhiana, within three weeks, to the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Barnala, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Barnala on 15.03.2011. 15.02.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No