TA No.167 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.167 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.05.2011 Dr. Paviter Kaur ...Applicant Versus Dr. Tripatdeep Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) 1. Mrs. Paviter Kaur, the applicant-wife has preferred the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of the petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), titled as ‘Dr. Tripat Deep Singh Vs. Dr. (Smt.) Paviter Kaur’, filed by the respondent, from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant cites Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 AIR (SC) 396; Dr. Naresh Kumari Vs. TA No.167 of 2011 2 Admer Singh, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 461; and Suman Vs. Gopal, 2003(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 26; and states that the convenience of the wife is to be seen. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argues that the applicant is a serving lady, the minor son is being looked after by the mother of the applicant and that the respondent is serving at Puducherry. The learned counsel cites Jitendra Singh Vs. Bhanu Kumar, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 169; Priyanka Batra Vs. Manish Batra, 2005(12) S.C.C. 236; Surajmukhi Vs. Chhotu Ram, 2009(1) ICC 475; and Mrs. Navneet Kaur Vs. Captain A.P.S. Sandhu, 2003(3) RCR (Civil) 533. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The transfer has been sought primarily on the two grounds, viz., the applicant is raising the minor son born out of the wedlock between the parties and the applicant apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent. However, it is an admitted fact that the applicant is employed and the minor son is looked after by the mother of the applicant in her absence. Moreover, from the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it is also apparent that the respondent-husband is employed at Puducherry. Therefore, the apprehension of threat to the life and liberty of the applicant at the hands of the respondent, seems to be misconceived. 6. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the present transfer application and the same is TA No.167 of 2011 3 accordingly dismissed. 7. However, it is ordered that the respondent shall pay the traveling expenses on each visit of the applicant from Patiala to Bathinda in regard to the petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, which is quantified to ` 2,500/- per visit. 03.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No