( 1 ) SMT. RIYA @ Lata wife of Mahesh Israni, applicant original opponent has filed this Misc. Civil Application praying for transfer of the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 139 of 2001 filed by the opponent - husband Shri Mahesh Sugnomal Israni in the Family Court at Ahmedabad to the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Gandhidham and be tried along with Hindu Marriage Petition No. 4 of 2001 filed by the applicant.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this application are as under:2. 1 smt. RIYA - applicant is married to the opponent Shri Mahesh S. Israni and the said marriage was solemnised on 13. 3. 97 as per the Hindu Customs and rites. The applicant and the opponent thereafter were residing together in the house of opponent at Ahmedabad consisting of father, mother, brother and sister of the opponent. It appears that thereafter difference and dispute arose between the parties and it is a case of the applicant that she was being ill-treated and abused by the family members of the opponent and ultimately she had filed a Hindu Marriage Petition No. 4/01 before the court of Civil Judge (S. D.) at Gandhidham for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the opponent. 2. 2 thereafter the opponent-husband has filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 139/01 against the applicant wife before the Family Court at Ahmedabad on 28th February, 2001, and prayed for a decree of judicial separation. The applicant has appeared in HMP Suit No. 139/01 and has filed her reply dated 18. 6. 2001 and contested the said suit. The evidence of the opponent has been recorded in this behalf and the opponent has also filed closing purshis. 2. 3 learned advocate further submitted that so far as Gandhidham Court is concerned, the opponent husband has filed reply and the examination-in-chief of the applicant wife is over. In view of the aforesaid aspect the applicant has filed this application for transfer of HMP No. 139/2001 from the Family Court at Ahmedabad to Gandhidham Court and also prayed that the HMP No. 4/01 be tried alongwith the said suit. 2. 4 learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon Sec. 24 of the CPC which provides general power of transfer and withdrawal. 2. 4 (A) the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank, Madras Vs. Chemical Construction Co. and others reported in AIR 1979 SC 1514 particularly para 18 the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:"para. 18 Although the exercise of this discretionary power cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of any cast iron formula uniformly applicable to all situations. Yet, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer can be deduced from judicial decisions. One of them is that where two suits raising common questions of facts and laws between parties common to both the suits, are pending in two different courts, it is generally in the interest of justice to transfer one of those suits to the other forum to be tried by the same Court, with consequent avoidance of multiplicity in the trial of the same issues and the risk of conflicting decisions thereon. The instant case falls squarely within this category. "2. 4 (B) learned advocate for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 particularly para 3 which reads as under: "para. 3 It is the husbands suit against the wife. It is the wifes convenience that, therefore, must be looked at. The circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition absolute. "2. 5 he has also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of K. R. Srinathi Vs. H. Ramakrishnan reported in AIR 1990 Madras 330 particularly para 13 on page 333 which reads as under: "para. 13 The other pivot of attack of the respondent hinges on the ground of convenience, in the sense of the same being considered to be the conven