Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh II, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kul Bhushan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Krishna Gopal, learned counsel for opposite party and perused the record.

2. This is an application filed by applicant-wife under Section 24 C.P.C., seeking transfer of Petition No. 735 of 2013 (Dharmendra Pratap Singh Rathore v. Smt. Nisha), pending before Family Court, Bareilly to Etah on the ground that there is no one in her family to escort her to Bareilly to do pairvi of the case, having two years old daughter and also having financial constraints. It is also pleaded that no maintenance has been provided to the applicant and she has no otherwise means to meet the expenses.

3. Learned counsel for opposite party vehemently opposed the application and stated that there is no reason for transfer of the case to Etah.

4. The power of transfer of a case from one Court to another under Section 24 C.P.C. is very wide. However, while exercising such power, the Court itself must look into the ground taken for justifying transfer and should consider the matter within permissible limitations so as not to exercise power on mere asking by applicant.

5. The plaintiff, as obiter litis or dominus litis, has a right to chose any forum, the law allows him. It is a substantive right but of course subject to control by statute like Sections 22 to 23 of C.P.C.

6. The mere factum of expenses or difficulties should not justify transfer of a case from one Court to another, unless Court finds that expenses and difficulties in the Court, where it is pending, is so great as to lead injustice to applicant, or, the suit has been filed in a particular Court for the purpose of working injustice. (P. Sadayandi Nadar and others v. Venugopala Chetty and others, AIR 1960 Kerela 91; Satyasri Fertilisers v. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., AIR 2003 AP 312; and, The Hindustan Assurance and Mutual Benefit Society Ltd. v. Rail Mulraj and others, 1914 (27) MLJ 645).

7. It is always necessary to the Court to find out from the allegations made in transfer application, whether any reasonable ground is made out for transfer of the case. (Smt. Sudha Sharma v. Ram Naresh Jaiswal, AIR 1990 MP 320)

8. Transfer of cases from one Court to another is a serious matter particularly when transfer is sought by making allegations against Presiding Officer. It sometimes indirectly cause doubt on the integrity and competence of Presiding Officer of the Court from whom the matter is transferred. In cases where ground for transfer is likelihood of bias of Presiding Officer, it is onerous duty of Court to see, whether such ground has been substantiated with reasonable certainty or not. It should not be done without a proper and sufficient cause. In Tula Ram v. Harjiwan Das, (1882) ILR 5 All 60, it was held that the Court has to consider whether applicant has made out a case to justify it, closing doors of the Court in which suit is brought to plaintiff, and leaving him to seek his remedy in another jurisdiction.

9. In Meneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jekhmalani, (1979) Cri LJ 458 (SC), the Court said:

Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the Court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. (emphasis added)

10. Again in the context of power of Supreme Court with regard to transfer of cases under Section 25 C.P.C. in Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, 1990(1) SCC 4, the Court said:

“The question of expediency would depend on the facts and c