JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms.Himanshi Balodi for the applicant and learned Advocate Mr.J. F. Mehta, who submits that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the respondent and he seeks permission to file his reply. Permission is granted. The reply filed by the respondent is taken on record.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent.

3. By way of this application, the applicant prays for transfer of Family Suit No.1226 of 2022 from the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Rajpipla.

4. Learned Advocate Ms.Balodi for the applicant would submit that the parties had got married on 2.12.2020 and whereas later on, on account of certain differences, they are at present residing separately. Learned Advocate would submit that the applicant is a mother of a minor daughter, who is aged a little more than one year as of now. Learned Advocate would further submit that while the present respondent has preferred the present application being Family Suit No.1226 of 2022 for declaring the marriage as void under Section 12B and 12C of Hindu Marriage Act, on the other hand, the present applicant has preferred an application being Criminal Misc. Application No.97 of 2022 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla. Learned Advocate Ms.Balodi would submit that since the present respondent would be required to attend the said proceedings at Rajpipla, it would not cause any inconvenience to the respondent, if the Family Suit preferred by him is also transferred to Rajpipla and whereas it is submitted that on the other hand, more particularly considering the fact that the present applicant is an unemployed lady, mother of one year old child, it would cause grave inconvenience to the applicant to travel from Village Navapura, Taluka Nandod, District Narmada to Ahmedabad on every occasion for attending the Family Suit. Learned Advocate Ms.Balodi would, therefore, request that having regard to such circumstances, the present application may be allowed.

5. This application has been vehemently objected to by learned Advocate Mr.Mehta, who would submit that the parties had got married at Ahmedabad and whereas they had lived together at Ahmedabad, hence, the cause of action for filing of the Family Suit had arisen at Ahmedabad. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta would submit that in this view of the matter, there is no requirement for transferring the Family Suit from the Family Court at Ahmedabad to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Rajpipla. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta would, therefore, request to this Court to reject the present application. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta would further submit that the Court at Rajpipla, where the transfer is sought for would not be competent to decide the application preferred by the present respondent, more particularly since the Court at Rajpipla would be an inferior Court compared to the Family Court, more particularly, according to the learned Advocate Mr.Mehta, as per Section 7 of the Family Court Act, for the purpose of jurisdiction, since the Family Court is having the status of District Court and whereas the Court at Rajpipla being a Court of inferior jurisdiction, therefore, the application preferred by the respondent would not lie before such Court.

6. Having regard to such submissions, learned Advocate Mr.Mehta would also rely upon Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code and would submit that the power under Section 24 of CPC does not empower this Court to transfer a case to a Court of inferior jurisdiction and hence, according to the learned Advocate Mr.Mehta, the application for transfer may not be considered by this Court.

7. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties, who have not submitted anything else.

8. In order to deal with the legal contention raised by the learned Advocate Mr.Mehta, it would be benef