JUDGMENT :

1. Rule.

2. The present application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC) is filed by the applicant - husband seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 164 of 2021 (Old No. HMP No. 111 of 2019), filed by the respondent - wife under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce, pending in the Family Court at Gandhinagar to the Family Court at Bhavnagar.

3. It is the case of the applicant that the marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 19.01.2011 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, they have two children. It is alleged that, after some time of the marriage, the respondent – wife started picking up quarrels with the applicant on flimsy grounds and eventually, left the matrimonial home, leaving two children with the applicant only.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Tejas Shukla for the applicant – husband and learned advocate Ms. Raksha Dikshit for the respondent – wife.

4.1 The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the respondent – wife has filed the above-referred suit before the concerned Court at Gandhinagar, whereas, the present applicant resides with two children at Bhavnagar. It is submitted that the distance between Gandhinagar and Bhavnagar is very long i.e. almost about 200 kms. Further, referring to the medical certificate dated 25.09.2018, issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is having permanent disability of 30% low vision and accordingly, it would be difficult for the applicant to travel to Gandhinagar for attending the Court proceedings with his minor children. Further, the applicant is doing petty work and selling cutlery and thus doing petty work and accordingly, has no sufficient means of earning. Furthermore, for attending the Court proceedings at Gandhinagar, the applicant would require a companion. Besides, in view of the distance between the two places, the applicant will have to incur expenses towards lodging and boarding also.

4.2 The learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that, in fact the respondent is residing at Bhavnagar only and with a view to harass the present applicant, suit in question is filed at the Court at Gandhinagar. Otherwise, the respondent had filed an FIR as well as an application for maintenance before the concerned authority/Court at Bhavnagar only.

4.3 It is further submitted that the applicant has, besides responsibility of his two children, responsibility of his aged parents also, whereas, the respondent has no such liability and accordingly, if the suit is transferred to Bhavnagar, in that case, the respondent will not have to suffer these much difficulties as compared to the present applicant and there is no question of comparative hardship. Making above submissions, it is requested that present application may be allowed as requested for.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Raksha Dikshit for the respondent – wife, while heavily opposing the present application, submitted that the respondent - wife has filed the aforesaid suit for divorce before the concerned Court at Gandhinagar. It is submitted that after some time of the marriage, the applicant started harassing the respondent and used to give physical and mental torture and in the year 2017, removed the respondent from her matrimonial home and therefore, the respondent wife also lodged an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and also filed an application for maintenance in which, the Court concerned has granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month. It is submitted that the applicant has not cared about the respondent nor has done any arrangement for her sustenance after her removal from the matrimonial home and accordingly, she has filed the suit for divorce at the competent Court at Gandhinagar and in such set of facts, it is requested that this application may be rejected being devoid of any mer