The court established that transfer applications must be filed in the appropriate jurisdictional bench as per the territorial division of the High Court.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner- wife seeking transfer of the Divorce Petition bearing No.217/2019 titled as Deepak Kumar Vs. Komal filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') by the respondent-husband, from the Court of Additional District Judge, No.1, Rajgarh District Churu to the concerned Family Court, Jhunjhunu.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife submits that the petitioner-wife had lodged an F.I.R. against the respondent- husband and his family members for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of I.P.C. Counsel further submits that the petitioner-wife filed an application under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent-husband and his family members before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu and also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the respondent-husband before the learned Family Court at Jhunjhunu, which are still pending for adjudication. Counsel also submits that the respondent-husband has filed the divorce petition only to harass the petitioner and threatened her to withdraw the aforesaid cases. Counsel contends that the petitioner-wife alongwith her two children is presently living with her parents in Jhunjhunu. Furthermore, the financial condition of the petitioner is very poor and she is dependent on her parents and, therefore, she is not in a position to travel the distance of about 150 kms., from Jhunjhunu to Rajgarh to defend her case. Counsel further contends that there is no one in her family to accompany her to Rajgarh for defending the aforesaid case. Counsel also contends that in another cases i.e. under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the criminal trial is pending at the Family Court, Jhunjhunu and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, respectively. Thus, there is no difficulty for the respondent to defend all the cases in Jhunjhunu. Lastly, counsel prays that the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 filed by the respondent may be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, No.1, Rajgarh District Churu to the Family Court, Jhunjhunu.

3. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife, has relied upon the following judgments of this Court :- (i) Anshu Bhatnagar Vs. Rajendra Bhatnagar, reported in 2013 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 139, (ii) Smt. Anjesh Kanwar Vs. Rajpal Singh Bhati (S.B. Civil Transfer Application No.220/2018) decided on 12.04.2019, (iii) Smt. Seema Vs. Navaratan Pitti (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No.14/2015) decided on 10.08.2015' and (iv) Smt. Ranjana Vs. Manoj Kumar (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No.37/2015) decided on 05.08.2016.

4. The transfer application has strongly been contested by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband and it has been contended on his behalf that the cases arising out of District Churu falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur, therefore, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur does not have the jurisdiction to hear the present transfer application. Counsel has further contended that an F.I.R. bearing No.3/2020 has been lodged on 11.01.2020 after filing of the divorce petition, having false allegations against the respondent-husband and his family members. Counsel has also contended that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on 06.01.2020 i.e. also after filing of the divorce petition by the respondent-husband. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a Teacher and her family members are financially sound. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has no inconvenience in attending the proceedings under Section 13 of the A