The main legal point established is that transfer of proceedings can be allowed based on financial constraints and inability to travel alone, supported by relevant case laws and lack of opposition from the opposing party.

This is an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 151 of the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for an appropriate order to transfer the proceedings of Divorce Case No. 12 (T) of 1997, presently pending in the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, to the Court of District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar. I have heard Sri S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The brief facts are, that the opposite party filed the suit being Divorce Case No. 12(T) of 1997 in the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, under Section 13 (1) (1 -A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereafter referred to as the Act,) praying for a decree for dissolution of marriage with Revision petitioner by divorce. Considering the issue involved in the present proceedings, it is not necessary to go into the details of the allegations made in the application for divorce. The Revision petitioner, the wife, receiving the summons of the suit has approached with the present petition with the prayer as mentioned above. Shri Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements made in the Revision petition, more particularly those in para 8. In the said paragraph, it has been categorically stated that the Revision petitioner has no income of her own and has been residing with her parents at Pataikur Bazar (Kailashahar) and is fully dependent upon her father for her sustenance. It is further stated in the Revision petition that the father of the Revision petitioner is aged about 76 years and he is a Retd. Govt. servant, pension being the only source of income. It is further stated that the father of the revision petitioner is old and ailing and her brothers are also residing outside Kailashahar and there is no other relative where she can take shelter. In her petition she has further stated that to contest the matrimonial case she will have to come to Shillong and that, apart from the financial crunch, she is not accustomed to travel alone and as her brothers are busy in their respective jobs there is none to escort her to Shillong to defend her case. These statements are supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner.

3. No affidavit-in-opposition, to the revision petition has been filed by the opposite party. Sri Sarma, appearing for the opposite party drew my attention to the statement made in the Divorce petition to the effect that once Ganga PrasacL with whom the revision Petitioner had allegedly some illicit relation made an attempt on his (opposite party) life, but the same could be averted because of the alterness of the opposite party. He submitted before this court, that if his client is required to go to Kailashahar to attend the divorce proceedings, he has a risk of life. He has argued that the Proceedings may be transferred to a Court at any place preferably in between Shillong and Kailashahar. He also submitted that his client was ready and willing to meet the necessary expenses incurred by the revision petitioner in coming to Shillong to contest the petition. He has also argued that there is a provision for giving alimony under the Act and he is agreeable to make payments as would be ordered by the Court under the said provision of law.

4. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties. Mr. Dutta in support of his contentions, founded on the statements made in the revision Petition, relies on two decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2000) JO SCC p. 304 Geeta Heera -vs-Harish Chander Heera and (2000) 10SCC p. 350 Archana Rastogi -vs- Rakesh Rastogi and also a decision of this Court reported in (1995) 3 G ,R 370: 1995(3) GLT 500: Krishna Roy Choudhury -vs-RanjitRoy Choudhury. In the case reported in Geeta Heera, supra, it was contended by the wife in support of her prayer for transfer of the Matrimonial proceedings that she did not have sufficient