ORDER

1. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. THIS IS THE WIFES PETITION FOR TRANSFER. THIS COURT ON 6-10-2003 HAD OBSERVED THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF RECONCILIATION AND SETTLEMENT OUT OF COURT. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES HAVE INFORMED US TODAY THAT THE ATTEMPT FOR RECONCILIATION HAS FAILED. THE TRANSFER HAS BEEN SOUGHT BY THE WIFE ON THE GROUND THAT SHE HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME SHE IS COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON RELATIVES AND SHE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO GO FROM ROHTAS TO UJJAIN WHICH INVOLVES HUGE EXPENSES. EVEN OTHERWISE THIS COURT HAS BEEN SHOWING LENIENCY TOWARDS THE WIFE. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE DIRECT THAT MATRIMONIAL CASE NO. 156-A OF 1999. TITLED PANKAJ V. MADHU PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THIRD ADDITION DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UJJAIN. M.P. AND CASE NO…OF 2002, TITLED PANKAJ SAXENA V. MADHU SAXENA, PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, UJJAIN, M.P.. SHALL STAND TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. THE DISTRICT JUDGE SHALL EITHER TAKE UP THE CASES HIMSELF OR ASSIGN THE SAME TO ANY OTHER JUDICIAL OFFICER COMPETENT TO TRY SUCH CASES. THE TRANSFER PETITIONS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED.