The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to transfer a case based on principles of convenience, balance of inconvenience, and the welfare of the parties involved, especially in cases involving minor children.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of Civil Misc. Case No. 120/2017, titled as Naresh vs. Smt. Priti, from learned Additional District and Session Judge, Suratgarh, District- Sriganganagar to Family Court, Bikaner.

2. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner narrating the facts informs that the petitioner got married with the respondent as per Hindu rituals on 23.11.2010. However, thereafter their matrimony got strained and she has come to Bikaner to live with her parents.

3. He submitted that the respondent - husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of the marriage, which is pending before learned

Additional District and Session Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

4. Pointing out the predicament of the petitioner, learned counsel contended that the Suratgarh is about 180 Kms. from Bikaner and the petitioner who has a minor daughter of 3 years, finds it difficult and daunting to come all the way to Suratgarh. He further informs that two cases, one under Section 498 of IPC and another under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner are already pending before the competent Courts at Bikaner.

5. Mr. Kailash Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposing the prayer for transfer of the case submitted that the cases filed by the petitioner are nothing but counter blast and the case should not be transferred merely because the petitioner is a lady.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that matter at hand deserves to be transferred to Family Court, Bikaner as it is not only to convenient but conducive for all the parties to contest the case at Bikaner and for the minor child of 3 years who need the mother's company the most.

7. My aforesaid views are fortified by the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Smt. Vinita vs. Himanshu, AIR 2017 Raj 102, relevant part whereof is being reproduced hereunder:-

"It is, therefore, felt imperative to examine and explore the necessary principles governing transfer applications, filed by families, entangled in forensic fights, while invoking powers conferred upon this Court by Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

According to this Court, the provisions of Section 24 of the Code provides a great deal of discretion in the court, however, such discretion is required to be exercised on the basis of sound principles. It is true that the discretionary power, more particularly, the jurisdiction in relation to transfer of cases, can not be imprisoned or bound within a straight jacket or cast- iron formula, uniformly applicable to all situations, yet the courts are required to be mindful of the fact that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection.

Keeping in mind the provisions and mandate of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code, various judicial pronouncements have laid down broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer of a case. Generally speaking, they are, balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience arising out of a particular place of trial, having regard to the nature of evidence or the points involved in the case; issues raised by the parties; and, reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant that he might not get justice in the court, where the proceedings are pending, or reasonable apprehension of failure of justice on the basis of a proven bias. These few factors are some of the aspects, germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceedings.

It may be true that distance alone may not be decisive factor but it has its own role while considering the convenience of the parties, particularly, a wife.

Court should focus on the convenience rather than r