( 1. ) BY filing this petition under Section 23 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as cpc) the petitioner wife is seeking transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 17-A/04 filed by the respondent husband in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Katni to the Court of competent jurisdiction in District Durg in the State of Chhattisgarh.

( 2. ) IN short the petitioners case is that her parents arc old and infirm and her brother who is a business man in unable to accompany her to attend the case pending at Kalni. Petitioner has a son aged about two years and there is no-one to lookafter him. The petitioner is residing at Bhilai, District Durg which is more than 465 kms away from Katni. In the aforesaid circumstances it is difficult for her to attend the matrimonial case filed by the respondent at Katni.

( 3. ) THE respondent opposed the prayer on the grounds that- (i) the petitioner approached this Court after a considerable delay, (ii) the Trial Court vide order dated 28-4-2004 apart from maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses ordered the respondent to deposit Rs. 10,000/for travelling expenses of the petitioner which the respondent has deposited, (iii) this Court has no jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Court in the State of Chhattisgarh and (iv) in view of Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as act) the application seeking transfer invoking the provisions of the CPC is not maintainable.

( 4. ) SHRI Alok Aradhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner who is mother of a young son aged about two years is residing with her old and infirm parents and there is nobody to look after her young child. The distance between Durg to Katni is more than 465 kms. In such circumstances, it is very difficult and inconvenient for the petitioner to travel for such a long distance and to attend the case pending at Katni. So far as the maintainability of the petition seeking transfer of case from Katni to Durg, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Section 23 (3) of the CPC. Section 23 (3) of the CPC reads as under :

"23. (3) Where such Courts are subordinate to different High Courts, the application shall be made to the High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Court in which the suit is brought is situate. "

The learned Counsel further submitted that deposit of Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling expenses would not solve the inconvenience which would cause to the petitioner. The petitioner is not basing her case for transfer on the ground of non payment of travelling expenses but she is basing her case on the ground that she has a small child and there is nobody to accompany her to attend the case at Katni. As regards the ground of belated approaching this Court he submitted that the petitioner approached to this Court on 3-3-2004 seeking transfer of suit by filing M. C. C. No. 341/2004, after notice to the respondent it was listed on 8-5-2004. However, the same was withdrawn on 8-5-2004 as the petitioners Counsel was under the bona fide belief that the petition is not maintainable. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for recalling of the order. M. C. C. No. 889/2004 preferred for recalling of the order dated 8-5-2004 was disposed of on 25-6-2004 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for transfer of proceedings, accordingly the present petition has been filed. He further submitted that Section 23 (3) confers powers on this Court to transfer the case and Section 21 -A of the act does not bar entertaining a petition under Section 23 (3) of the CPC.

( 5. ) SHRI A. P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent while opposing the petition contended that by now 12 dates of hearing before the Trial Court are over and as such the petition be dismissed being highly belated. He further contended that in view of Section 25 of the CPC this petition seeking transfer of case from one St