Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present application has been filed by the applicant wife, seeking transfer of the petition titled as Rishi Dua v. Gurjeet Bajaj, filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short ‘the Act’) from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra to any other competent Court of justification at Panchkula.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that after few days of marriage, the applicant was ousted from her matrimonial home. He further contends that the respondent and his family members tortured her for bringing insufficient dowry. It is further contended that the applicant has also lodged an FIR.No.183 dated 25.6.2009, under Sections 406, 498A, 506 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, in which the proceedings are going on before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. She has also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of interim maintenance, which is also pending at Kunikshetra. It is further contended that she is presently residing at the mercy of her widowed mother at Panchkula. She has no source of income and it is very difficult for her to go to Kurukshetra to attend the Court proceedings. .

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and states that the applicant is deliberately delaying the matter and she is not appearing before the Court at Kurukshetra. The trial is at the fag end. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the conduct of the applicant, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out to transfer the case in question. The trial is at the fag end. From the perusal of the zimni orders, placed on record, it is made out that the applicant is not appearing before the trial Court. The evidence of the respondent stands recorded and only the evidence of the applicant wife is to be recorded. The applicant has shifted to Panchkula during the pendency of the trial. The averment regarding the paucity of funds is also not made out.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma, 2005(11) SCC 535 has held that “merely because petitioner is a lady does not mean that she cannot travel from one place to another and this itself is no substantial ground for transfer of the case”. Further, in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, 2006(9) SCC 197 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “some times, the leniency shown by the Courts in transfer petitions, is being misused by the women”.

6. In view of the above position, in the instant case, no ground is made out to transfer the case at this belated stage. Accordingly, the present transfer application is dismissed.

However, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.

Transfer application dismissed.

*******