J.K. Ranka, J.Instant transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner- wife seeking transfer of Case No.194/2014, Suresh v. Smt. Seema @ Vishnu, filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, from Family Court, Pali to Family Court, Ajmer or Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently residing with her father at Kishangarh (Ajmer) and she being a female, it would be difficult for her to travel to Pali quite often in the proceedings and on all occasions her aged father has to accompany her and it is difficult for her to take her father on every hearing. Counsel further submits that as many as four other cases u/Sec. 498-A IPC, 125 Cr.P.C., Domestic Violence Act and 494-A are pending at Kishangarh and therefore, the convenience is required to be seen of the petitioner who would suffer on account of travel to Pali as aforesaid. He contends that it would be convenient for the respondent also as all other matters between the parties are pending at Kishangarh and he would attend the proceedings in the said cases so also the present proceedings. He further contends that the petitioner is suffering from the disease of TB and even otherwise, being patient of such a disease, it is not possible for her to go to Pali which is at distance of 150 Kms. and return back at odd hours. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Sarita @ Samptai (Smt.) v. Dhan Raj.: 2008(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1283 and Aketa (Smt.) v. Anurag Joshi: 2009(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1483.

3. Per-contra, counsel for the respondent contends that the case is pending at Family Court, Pali within jurisdiction of Principal Seat, Jodhpur and this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the instant transfer application. She further submits that almost all matters are concluded and nothing remains to be considered at Kishangarh and merely because the petitioner happens to be a female, no right is conferred in her favour without just and proper cause to transfer the matter from Pali to Kishangarh. She also contends that illness as claimed by the petitioner about TB is no illness and it is just a mere claim. Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma: 2005(11) SCC 535; Anindita Das v. Sprijit Das: (2006) 9 SCC 197 and Teena Chhabra v. Manish Chhabra: (2004) 13 SCC 411.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and in my view, so far as the jurisdiction is concerned, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Aketa (Smt.) v. Anurag Joshi (supra) which was also a matter relating to transfer from Alwar to Hanumangarh and objection was raised about jurisdiction and this Court directed to transfer the case from Alwar to Hanumangarh and in this regard, in another judgment of this Court, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sarita @ Samptai (Smt.) v. Dhan Raj (supra), the matter was directed to be transferred from District Judge, Churu to District Judge, Sikar. Accordingly, in my view, in so far as the objection regarding jurisdiction is concerned, the same is rejected.

5. In my view, merely because the petitioner is a female and seeking transfer only on this premise cannot be said to be a good ground and the Honble Supreme Court in the cases, referred to supra, relied upon by counsel for the respondent, has certainly come to the said conclusion but in my view, the fact cannot be lost sight of that when other matters are pending consideration at Kishangarh, then in my view, this is an additional fact and feature and rather convenient even for the respondent who would be in a position to attend the other proceedings as well at a single place. At the same time, convenience of female has tobe kept in mind to travel at a distance of about 150 kilometers from Kishangarh to Pali for attending proceedings at Family Court, Pali and she has to accompany with her old aged father for attending the proceedings at Pali.

6. In my view, the balance of convenience is required to be seen in such case and I notice and observe that balance of convenience is in the favour of the petitioner and it would be in the interest of the petitioner to appear at Family Court, Kishangarh (Ajmer) as and when the matter is listed and the respondent, being a male, will have no difficulty in travelling to Kishangarh (Ajmer), if the case is transferred.

7. Consequently, the instant transfer petition stands allowed. The Case No.194/2014, Suresh v. Smt. Seema @ Vishnu, filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Court of Family Court, Pali is ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Kishangarh (Ajmer).

8. Let the parties may appear before the Family Court, Kishangarh (Ajmer) on 02/09/2015 and thereafter, the Family Court, Kishangarh (Ajmer) would regulate the hearing. Let Family Court, Kishangarh (Ajmer) club all the other matters to the extent possible and keep hearing on a single day.

9. A copy of this order be sent to Family Court, Pali and so also the Family Court, Kishangarh (Ajmer) for necessary compliance.