The convenience and hardship to the parties involved are the primary considerations for transferring a case, and each case must be considered on its own merit.

ORDER :

1. This application is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for transfer of Family Suit No. 1216 of 2021 pending before the Family Court, Vadodara to the Family Court at Rajkot, by the applicant – wife.

2. Heard Mr. K.P. Champaneri, learned advocate for the applicant. According to his submission, the applicant – wife has filed proceedings for maintenance at Rajkot, whereas proceedings for custody of a child is filed by the husband, that too, at Rajkot because of the territorial jurisdiction. He has further submitted that in any case, respondent – husband is attending both the proceedings at Rajkot, and therefore, the divorce proceedings filed by him at Vadodara may also be transferred to Family Court, Rajkot, so that all the three cases can be attended to by the respondent – husband on one day only.

2.1 He has further submitted that distance between Vadodara to Rajkot is approximately 300 kms one way and it would be most inconvenient for her to travel 600 kms per day, in case of attending or instructing her advocate as and when necessary, as it consumes at least two days for attending or instructing her advocate in the Court.

2.2 He has further submitted that she is having a child, aged about 10 years, who is also studying in school and it may be inconvenient for her to leave the child with parents, who are aged more than 70 years.

2.3 It is further submitted that the parents are having age-related medical problems, and therefore also, for a few hours it is most inconvenient for her to attend either Court proceeding at Vadodara or to instruct her advocate, who is engaged at Vadodara, and therefore, she has prayed for transfer of a case as aforesaid.

2.4 In support of his assertion, he has relied on a decision in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41, for a proposition that the convenience of the wife must be looked into for transferring of a case.

2.5 He has further relied on a decision in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 356, for a proposition that looking at the distance between two places, comparative hardship is more to the wife, and therefore, the Supreme Court thought it fit to transfer a case from one place to another at the instance of the wife.

2.6 He has further relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Sonal Shreyansh Vasa The Daughter of Gaurishankar L. v. Shreyansh Hitenbhai Vasa, reported in 2013 (3) GLR 2759, referring para 8.6 as also paragraph Nos. 15, 16 and 19 thereof, and requested the Court to transfer the case from Vadodara to Rajkot.

3. As against that, Mr. Abhisst K. Thaker, learned advocate for the respondent – husband submitted that the applicant – wife has already appointed her advocate and it is not that on all adjourned dates, she is required to attend the Court.

3.1 He has further submitted that she can even pray for exemption as and when she cannot attend the Court, if at all, her presence is required. He has further submitted that grandparents are there to look after the child aged 10 years, and therefore, it is not that she cannot travel to attend the case at Vadodara.

3.2 He has further submitted that, as reflected from the affidavit-in-reply, she has travelled all alone to foreign countries and for that her passport may also be looked into, which is not denied by the applicant – wife. Therefore, it is submitted that if she can travel foreign countries all alone and there is no inconvenience to travel within India, that too, only 300 kms one way.

3.3 He has further submitted that the husband is ready to bear all the possible expenses for attending the Court at Vadodara either for travelling or for stay at Vadodara, and therefore, there is no reason to transfer a case from Vadodara to Rajkot.

3.4 He has further submitted that her father, as reflected in the affidavit-in-reply to which there is no rejoinder filed, is a criminal offender and an FIR under Sec