Alok Sharma, J.

1. This miscellaneous petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at the instance of the applicant wife seeks transfer of civil suit No.9/2012, Suresh Kumar Meena v. Shivangi Meena from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City (Karauli).

2. The applicant and the non applicant belonging to Meena community were married on 12-5-1998 at Danalpur District Karauli according to Hindu religion and rites. A male child was born out of the marriage and is presently about 13 years of age. The non applicant husband filed a civil suit under order 7 Rule 1 CPC before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas seeking a declaration that the marriage between the applicant and the non applicant stood dissolved in terms of a community divorce. It was submitted that Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 did not apply to the couple as they belonged to the Meena community and a customary divorce was wholly legal and be so declared by the court. Allegations in the suit were denied in the written statement. The merit of the case of the contesting parties is however not relevant to this transfer petition, and therefore will not be adverted to. Attention will be focused on the transfer application alone.

3. The applicant has prayed that this court exercise its power under Section 24 CPC and transfer the suit No.9/2012 from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City (Karauli) for the reason that the non applicant husband belongs to Bamanwas where he and his family members allegedly wield considerable influence and have the potential of obstructing the defence of the applicant in the non-applicants suit for declaration that the marriage has been dissolved by the community panchayat. It has been also submitted that the applicants life would be under threat in the event she were to visit Bamanwas to defend the case. It has been submitted that the applicant is residing at Hindaun City along with her family members and she is "helpless" lady who cannot travel on each and every occasion to the court at Bamanwas to defend the case set up by the non applicant. Financial strain has also been set up as a ground. Hence transfer of the case from court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City (Karauli) has been sought.

4. The application has been opposed by the non applicant. It has been submitted that the applicant has concealed material facts in the application for transfer of the suit. It has been submitted that the applicant had earlier filed a transfer application No.867/2012 before the Honble Supreme Court seeking transfer of the same suit i.e. No.9/2012 from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to a court at Delhi. However subsequently the said transfer application was withdrawn by the applicant on the plea that she was residing at Bikaner. While filing the transfer application No.867/2012 before the Honble Supreme Court seeking transfer of suit No.9/2012 from Bamanwas to Delhi, the applicant had given out her address as Faridabad, and on this count the transfer of the case No.9/2012 was sought from Bamanwas to Delhi. These facts as to her residence have been suppressed by the applicant in her application before this Court for the transfer of the same suit i.e. No.9/2012. It has been further submitted that the applicant has filed several applications in the suit No.9/2012 at Bamanwas which have been dismissed and now the suit is at an advanced stage and evidences of the parties is to be recorded. The four applications filed by the applicant were (i) Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for maintainability of suit, (ii) Application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for deleting some paras of suit, (iii) Application under Section 148 CPC seeking time to file reply, and (iv) Application for interim maintenance have already been dismissed. This counsel for the non-applicant submitted shows that the applicant has been pursuing the non-applicants suit at Bamanwas with gutso and is not overawed, threatened or frightened as falsely averred in the transfer application.

5. It has been further submitted that presently three cases viz. (i) Under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance in the Family Court Saket, New Delhi, (ii) under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, and (iii) under Section 340 CrPC in ADJ court Tees Hazari Delhi, are pending between the parties at Delhi. It has been submitted that the problem of traveling and financial strain which has been advanced as a cause in the application seeking transfer of suit NO.9/2012 from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City (Karauli) has never been agitated with regard to above three cases pending at Delhi. It is thus clear that the grounds for transfer of the suit alleged to be founded upon inconvenience of travel and financial hardship are wholly make-believe and false.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The power under Section 24 CPC is to be exercised in the discretion of this courtjudicious no doubt. It is trite that for availing the discretion of a court the applicant should approach the court with clean hand. This does not appear to be the case in the present transfer petition. The grounds proffered for transfer of suit No.9/2012 from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City (Karauli) advocate the difficulty of the applicant as a single lady in pursuing her case at Bamanwas owing to lack of adequate escort and financial strain/s, which would follow if she were required to travel to Bamanwas from time to time to contest the case. However, in the context of the fact that three cases are pending at Delhi between the applicant and the non applicant and the applicant has not raised any ground of difficulty in travelling or financial strain in regard thereto, the same ground agitated in this application for transfer of the case from Bamanwas to Karauli cannot be of any avail.

8. Aside of aforesaid in the present petition seeking transfer of suit No.9/2012 from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City (Karauli), it has been stated that the applicant is residing at Hindaun along with her family members. Contrary to this averment, in transfer petition No.867/2012 filed before the Honble Supreme Court, the applicant had shown her residence first as Faridabad and at the time withdrawal of the said transfer petition it was stated that she was residing at Bikaner. The contradiction with regard to residence of the applicant is obvious. Further the applicant appears to have taken various steps in the suit No.9/2012 at Bamanwas and filed (i) Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for maintainability of suit, (ii) Application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC for deleting some paras of suit, (iii) Application under Section 148 CPC seeking time to file reply, and (iv) Application for interim maintenance which have been dismissed. In the case of Gayatri Mohapatra v. Ashit Kumar Panda [(2003)11 SCC 731] [LQ/SC/2000/1608] the Honble Supreme Court has held that where the applicant wife was seeking transfer on the ground of difficulty in travelling, but had travelled from place to place in connection with her family business, there was no occasion to take note of the purported inconvenience and difficulty in her travelling for the exercise of the courts discretion in her favour. In the case of Neelam Bhatia v. Satbir Singh Bhatia [(2004)13 SCC 436] [LQ/SC/2005/147] the Honble Supreme Court has held that the stage of the suit is relevant while exercising the courts discretion to transfer a case from one court to another.

9. In my considered opinion the fact that the applicant wife is contesting three case at Delhi viz. (i) Under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance in the Family Court Saket, New Delhi, (ii) under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, and (iii) under Section 340 CrPC in ADJ court Tees Hazari Delhi, without any demur, complaint or discomfort, inconvenience or financial strain, the ground advanced for the transfer of suit No.9/2012 from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City (Karauli) cannot be sustained. The applicant appears to be travelling to Delhi for contesting the three cases aforesaid, consequent to which I am of the considered opinion that no question of inconvenience or difficulty in the applicant travelling to Bamanwasat as shorter distance can be made out. Further the applicant has filed the written statement as also and various applications in the suit No.9/2012 evidencing the fact that she is not in any way prejudiced by the continuation of the case at Bamanwas.

10. The discretionary power under Section 24 CPC can be exercised in favour of a party who / which approaches the Court with clean hands. But in the instant case the applicant has not approached the court with clean hands. The proceedings before the Honble Supreme Court for transfer of suit No.9/2012 from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to a court at Delhi were suppressed from this court and brought to light only by the non-applicant. So also was suppressed the fact the three matters between the parties were pending at Delhi. Further the applicant has varyingly stated her residence to be Faridabad, Bikaner and Karauli. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no ground for exercising the discretion of this Court under Section 24 CPC to transfer the suit No.9/2012 from the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bamanwas (Sawai Madhopur) to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City (Karauli) has been made out.

11. Consequently, I find no force in the transfer petition and the same is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.