The convenience of the wife in matrimonial causes is a significant factor for considering transfer applications, and the economic soundness of both parties and their circumstances are crucial in eking out their livelihood.

JUDGMENT :

(J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is a transfer application by the wife, seeking transfer of Case No. 358 of 2018, Kuldeep Kumar Dwivedi v. Smt. Divya, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Banda to the Family Court at Kanpur Nagar.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

3. It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the applicant that there are two cases inter partes pending at Kanpur Nagar, details whereof are mentioned in Paragraphs Nos. 7 and 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. The submission is that in case the proceedings are moved from Banda to Kanpur Nagar, it would be convenient to both parties, who can request a single date there. It is next submitted that the applicant is a housewife and has no independent source of income. She stays with her father and a young son aged 10 years, whom she has to take care of. It is argued that given the financial constraints, it is not possible for the applicant to defend outstation proceedings at Kanpur Nagar, travelling on each date fixed from Banda to that station and back. It is pointed out that the opposite party is an Assistant Professor in the D.A.V. College, Gorakhpur and draws a salary of Rs. 1,40,000/- per month. The aforesaid Rs.1,40,000/- per month. The aforesaid fact is asserted in Paragraph No. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is next submitted that the opposite party, who is an able-bodied man and financially well-off, can conveniently defend at Banda. He is far better placed than the applicant in the matter of defending outstation proceedings. It is also submitted that convenience of the wife, in causes matrimonial, has to be accorded primacy.

4. Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties, this Court finds that in Paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the transfer application, there is mention of an F.I.R. lodged by the applicant at Kanpur Nagar, giving rise to Case Crime No. 328 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 354kha, 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In Paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party, this fact has not been denied at all, though the allegations in the F.I.R. are disputed. This Court finds that there is no assertion in Paragraph No. 7 that on the basis of the F.I.R., a charge-sheet has been filed and a case is pending before the Court. Therefore, of the two cases pending at Kanpur Nagar, as submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant, this Court finds that only one is pending, which is the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short “Cr.P.C.”], mention whereof is made in Paragraph No. 12 of the affidavit. The assertions in Paragraph No. 12 of the affidavit have not been denied in Paragraph No. 13 of the counter affidavit. The position, as stands established on record, is that one case is pending inter partes at Kanpur Nagar, that is to say, the one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. There is no case made out in the counter affidavit specifically to the effect that the opposite party has applied for transfer of the maintenance case out of Kanpur Nagar to Banda or any other district. It has been asserted in Paragraph No. 17 of the counter affidavit that the applicant and her father had quarrelled with the opposite party, when he went to Kanpur Nagar to defend the proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. There is also a complaint in this regard to the Station House Officer, Kotwali, annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit. Allusion in greater detail will be shortly made.

5. The fact, however, remains that notwithstanding the case of quarrel or altercation against the opposite party by the applicant and her father, no application seeking transfer of proceedings from Kanpur Nagar to Band