Jitendra Chauhan, J. - (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 'Chander Pal Sharma Vs. Smt. Babita', filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge -cum -Family Court, Faridabad, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The only ground for seeking transfer of the petition under 2 Section 13 of the Act is that the two petitions, one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the other under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are pending before the competent Courts at Amritsar.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has produced a photocopy of the petition under Section 13 of the Act, in which the date of institution of the HMA petition No. 580 of 2010, is recorded as 4.8.2010. Therefore, it is evident that the petition filed by the respondent is prior in time and the petitions filed by the applicant are counter -blast thereto. In Surajmukhi Vs. Chhotu Ram,, 2009 (1) ICC 475, this Court has held as under: - 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no reason to direct transfer of the divorce petition from Sirsa to Hisar. The petition filed by the applicant -wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was instituted after the husband filed a divorce petition. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are on the verge of conclusion. The distance of 100 kms. is insufficient to direct transfer of the case from Sisra to Hisar....;