TA No.175 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA No.175 of 2011
Date of decision : 05.05.2011
Subhash Rani
...Applicant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, Advocate,
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 ‘Rakesh Kumar Vs. Subhash Rani’,
filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (for short `the Act’), from the Court of learned Additional Civil
Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balachaur (S.B.S. Nagar), to the Court of competent
jurisdiction at Rupnagar.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that proceedings
in FIR No.87 dated 17.5.2009 under Section 406, 498-A IPC, petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and petition under Section 12 of the
TA No.175 of 2011 2
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are pending
against the respondent at Rupnagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the
applicant is a resident of Distt. Rupnagar and the purpose of filing the
petition under Section 9 of the Act is only to harass the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently
opposed the prayer.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
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. Mrs. Subhash Rani, the applicant-wife, is residing at Distt.
Rupnagar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of
the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.
Divn.), Balachaur. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at
the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with
the responsibility of raising her minor daughter, to attend the court
proceedings at Balachaur.
TA No.175 of 2011 3
8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of
Distt. Rupnagar 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 ‘Rakesh
Kumar Vs. Subhash Rani’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned
Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balachaur, and is transferred to the
Court of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar. The entire record
pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the
trial Court at Balachaur to the learned District Judge, Rupnagar, within
three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any
other Court of competent jurisdiction.
10. The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District
Judge, Rupnagar, on 04.06.2011.
5.5..2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE
Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No