Point of Law: Once the applicant has moved application under Section 24 of Act, 1955, which was allowed and uninterrupted litigation expenses is paid to her, she cannot move transfer application on the ground of distance and financial stress.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is residing at District Etawah. She has also filed Case No. 301 of 2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Case No. 227 of 2019, under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act at there. He next submitted that only to harass the applicant, opposite party has filed Divorce Petition No. 46 of 2019 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya. He further submitted that while she was visting at Auraiya alongwith her father, she was misbehaved and threatened to face dare consequences. For which, applicant has also moved an application before the Senior Superintedent of Police, Auraiya. Lastly, he submitted that under such facts and circumstances, direction may be issued to Court below to transfer her case from Auraiya to Etawah.

3. Mr. Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that applicant is still residing at District Auraiya, which may be verified from the correspondence between the applicant and S.S.P., Auraiya. Further, pursuant to her alleged application before S.S.P., Auraiya, no FIR has been lodged. He next submitted that in the divorce petition, applicant has also filed written statements and testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have also been recorded. He further submitted that during the pendency of divorce petition, applicant has filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1955) for pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses, which was partly allowed vide order dated 6.4.2021. Opposite party is paying the litigation expenses to the applicant as directed by the Court below vide order dated 6.4.2021. He also submitted that except the testimony of defence witnesses, nothing remains to be recorded for adjudication of the case. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Abhilasha Gupta vs. Harimohan Gupta reported in 2021 (9) SCC 730 decided on 24.9.2021 in which Apex Court has taken the view that once the application under Section 24 of Act, 1955 is allowed and case is at the verge of final decision, no interference is required.

4. In his rejoinder argument, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that she is facing problem in appearing before the Family Court, Auraiya, but he could not dispute this fact that she is receiving the litigation expenses upon her application under Section 24 of Act, 1955 as directed by this Court vide order dated 6.4.2021.

5. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgment of Apex Court. Facts of the case are undisputed that applicant has filed written statements before the Court below and testimony of P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 have also been recorded. It is also not disputed that applicant is receiving litigation expenses on month to month basis awarded by the Court below vide order dated 6.4.2021 upon her application under Section 24 of Act, 1955. In the matter of Abhilasha Gupta (Supra), the very same controversy is before the Apex Court in which Apex Court has refused to interfere the transfer application. The said judgment of Apex Court dated 24.9.2021 is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife praying inter alia for transfer of a petition for divorce filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(a) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing H.M. Case No. A-130 of 2019 titled "Harimohan Gupta vs. Abhilasha Gupta", pending before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Susner, Madhya Pradesh to the Family Court at Kota, Rajasthan. Counter affidavit in opposition to the present petition has been filed by the respondent.

Ms. Ranu Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent-hu