The main legal point established is that the court has discretion to transfer a case based on principles such as balance of convenience, inconvenience to the parties, and the reasonable apprehension of failure of justice.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J —The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner, seeking transfer of Case No.82/2016 titled as "Bharat Singh Vs. Sonu Kanwar" filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage, from Rajsamand to Jodhpur.

2. Ms. Divya Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner narrating the facts in brief, informed the Court that the petitioner's marriage was solemnized on 29.11.2010, whereafter she has started living with her husband at Surat. However, their matrimonial relationship got strained and she had to come to live with her widow mother at Jodhpur, alongwith two minor children, aging two and four years. She submitted that the respondent has filed the aforesaid case before District Judge, Rajsamand. Bringing to fore the difficulty faced by the petitioner, she submitted that undertaking the journey to Rajsamand, which is around 220 kms from Jodhpur is a tedious task, which not only involves cost but time also. The journey also causes inconvenience, as the petitioner has to carry with her, two minor children all the way to Rajsamand and that in the present factual backdrop, the petitioner, who is illiterate lady, living with her widow mother, is finding it difficult to cope up, for which, the case in question be transferred to the Family Court at Jodhpur.

3. In the facts of the present case, this Court deems it expedient and in the interest of justice to accede to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. My aforesaid views are fortified by the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Vinita Vs. Himanshu , (2017) AIR(Rajasthan) 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 castiron 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 redressal or mitigating against inconvenience. Convenience itself is a vital factor, to be reckoned while deciding a Transfer Petition."

5. In view of above discussion foregoing and the facts obtaining, this Court withdraws the Case No.82/2016 titled as "Bharat Singh Vs. Sonu Kanwar" from the Court of District Judge, Rajsamand a