Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Dhananjai Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Smriti Singh who represent the opposite party.

2. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner for the transfer of the Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 197 of 2022 from the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna.

3. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present petition is/are as follows:

4. The marriage of the petitioner alongwith the opposite party took place on 06.02.2011 at Patna and out of the said wedlock, a female child was born on 02.03.2012 at Patna City, Patna.

5. Later, the relationship between the couple soured and the petitioner was forced to return to her parent’s home in 2016 at Patna and started residing there alongwith her minor daughter.

6. As per the petition, the opposite party thereafter stopped paying her any amount forcing her to file Maintenance Case No. 179(M)/2016 before the Family Court, Patna.

7. Upon information, the opposite party also preferred Matrimonial Case No. 236/2017/CIS No. 236/17 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’) before the Family Court, Katihar.

8. The maintenance case thereafter was taken up by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna and vide an order dated 11.05.2018, the direction was given to the opposite party to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 3,000/- to the minor daughter from the date of the filing of the petition.

9. However, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the same was never complied with inasmuch as out of Rs. Six lakhs that became due against the opposite party, only Rs. 50,000/- was paid as lumpsum amount.

10. Further, when the petitioner appeared in the Matrimonial case pending before the Family Court, Katihar and as her petition for setting aside the ex-parte order was allowed on 25.04.2019, the opposite party herein was infuriated and threatened her of dire consequences if she ever steps in Katihar again.

11. Fearing danger to her life, the petitioner thereafter preferred MJC No. 1914 of 2019 before the Patna High Court for transfer of the said petition and during the pendency of the same, the Family Court, Katihar passed order against her which led to filing of M.A. No. 333 of 2021 before the Patna High Court which is presently pending.

12. Further, the case of the petitioner is that although the opposite party is posted as Office Clerk in the Army at Missamari Army Cantt., Sonitpur district in Assam while she is residing with her parents in Patna where her minor daughter is pursuing study as a student of Class-VI in St. Joseph’s Convent High School, Jethuli, Banka Ghat, Patna; deliberately and with the sole purpose to harass her not only mentally and physically but also economically, the aforesaid divorce petition was preferred before the Family Court, Katihar.

13. The petitioner who was at the mercy of her parents was unable to move to Katihar when the petition was preferred as she was not economically sound and was could not bear the expenses of her journey to and fro Patna as also further expenses for staying at Katihar.

14. However, the God was kind enough to her and finally in July, 2022, she got a job as a Teacher at Begusarai which is around 100 kms from Patna. While her daughter is pursuing her study at Patna, she remains with her every weekend at Patna at her parent’s home while doing her duty during weekdays at Begusarai.

15. By way of I.A. 01 of 2023, the petitioner further brought on record the fact that after she got a job and had some money in her hand, she visited the Family Court, Katihar on 21.09.2022 and informed the Court about the present filing of the case with further prayer to adjourn the matter. However, the same was not considered and she was debarred from filing the written statement vide an order dated 01.12.2022.

16. As such, the prayer has been ma