Taranjit Kaur vs Bikramjeet Singh

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—This is an application u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of petition titled as ''Bikramjeet Singh Saini v. Taranjit Kaur'', filed by the Respondent u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short `the Act''), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at S.A.S. Nagar Mohali.

Learned Counsel for the applicant states that applicant was falsely implicated in case FIR No. 52 dated 08.05.2007, under Sections 379 and 494 IPC at Police Station East Division, Amritsar, which was subsequently quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 22.02.2010 in CRM-M-15497 of 2009. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Respondent had obtained an ex parte decree of divorce u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the Petitioner on 01.10.2008 without the knowledge of the Petitioner. After the fact of divorce obtained by the Respondent-husband came to her knowledge, the Petitioner has moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 01.10.2008 which is sought to be transferred from Amritsar to Mohali. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Respondent while on their honeymoon tried to sell her (applicant) to some unknown persons whereupon she was forced to take shelter in the Gurudwara Sahib, Nasik Road at Nasik. She apprehends that in case she visits Amritsar, she may be implicated in another case.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the applicant who was in the knowledge of the proceedings u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed written statement and affidavit in the Court. An SLP against the judgment dated 22.02.2010, passed by this Court in CRM-M-15497 of 2009 is pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and notice has been issued to the parties.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar 2001(1) M.L.J. 509, 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.

The Petitioner is residing with her parents since April, 2007. She is unemployed. Her mother is stated to be paralytic and her father is serving with some bank. In these circumstances, it is difficult for the wife to defend her case effectively at Amritsar, which is at a distance of about 250 Kms. The convenience of the wife is to be seen who has no source of income and is residing upon the mercy of her parents and without any help of other family members 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 titled as ''Bikramjeet Singh Saini v. Taranjit Kaur, filed by the Respondent u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short `the Act''), pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, deserves to be transferred to Mohali.

In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition titled as ''Bikramjeet Singh Saini v. Taranjit Kaur, filed by the Respondent u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short `the Act''), is withdrawn from the Court of learned T.A. No. 327 of 2010 -4-Additional District Judge, Amritsar, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Mohali. File of the petition shall be sent by the trial Court at Amritsar to the learned In charge District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction.

The parties shall appear before the Court of learned In charge District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali at 11 A.M. on 21.03.2011.