( 1. ) THIS transfer application has been filed under Section 23 (3) of the Civil procedure Code for transfer of Case No. 65-A/05 pending before the 1st Add1. District Judge, Balaghat (M. P.) to Durg (Chhattisgarh ).

( 2. ) RESPONDENT/husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of the hindu Marriage Act for obtaining divorce which is pending in the Court of 1st addl. District Judge, Balaghat. Marriage was performed on 29-4-98, out of the wedlock, a child, namely, Ku. Rani was born who is residing with the petitioner at Durg. Husband of petitioner is a Development Officer in LIC and posted at balaghat. Petitioner reported the matter to the police and husband is being prosecuted under Section 498-A of IPC at Durg. An application under Section 125, Cr. PC has also been filed, that is also pending at Durg. Petitioner is working as Shikshakarmi Grade III as such interim maintenance has not been awarded as she is in receipt of salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month.

( 3. ) TRANSFER of the case has been sought from Balaghat (M. P.) to Durg (Chhattisgarh) on the ground that it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the dates of hearing at Balaghat as she is a woman and it will be difficult for her to" obtain proper legal assistance at Balaghat, therefore, transfer of the case has been sought. She is residing at a place about 200 kms way from Balaghat. She also apprehends criminal assault, her job is temporary, she cannot take periodical leave. Reliance has been placed on decision of this Court in Smt. Lakshmi Nagdev Vs. Jitendra Kumar Nagdev, 2005 (1) M. P. H. T. 30, so as to transfer the case from Balaghat (M. P.) to Durg (Chhattisgarh ).

( 4. ) SHRI K. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that as Ku. Rani is obtaining instructions in KG-I, thus, she is an infant child, therefore, it would be difficult for the petitioner to attend the case at balaghat. Convenience of the wife is supreme as laid down by the Apex Court in reena Bahri Vs. Ajay Bahri, (2002) 10 SCC 136 and Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396, wherein it was observed that convenience of wife must be looked into. It would also not be possible to the petitioner to obtain proper legal assistance at Balaghat as respondent is an influential person posted as Development Officer.

( 5. ) SHRI A. C. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing with Shri N. Rathore for respondent has submitted that no case for transfer of the case from Balaghat to Durg is made out, it is a nearby place which is 200 kms away. Petitioner is in service, Ku. Rani Mishra is aged about 5-6 years, thus, merely on the ground of convenience of wife, without anything more, transfer cannot be ordered and petitioner is being defended by the Counsel at Balaghat, evidence has also been recorded on 5-1-07 before the Court below.

( 6. ) THE main question is whether merely on the ground that petitioner is a woman and for her convenience case can be transferred from Balaghat to durg. No doubt about it that in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another (supra), the Apex Court has ordered transfer of the case as the wife was residing at Delhi and case was pending at 1100 kms away at Ara, Bhojpur, she had none with whom she could stay in Ara, her parents were residing at Gurgaon. In the instant case, the case is pending at 200 kms away, places are well connected through the road, takes 3-4 hours in travelling to the place where the case is pending, facts are different in the instant case. In Reena Bahri Vs. Ajay Bahri (supra), the case was pending at Delhi, wife was residing at Bombay, wife was having small child with her, she was not having anybody who could conveniently accompany her to Delhi, therefore, transfer of the proceedings was ordered to bombay. The aforesaid decision Reena Bahri Vs. Ajay Bahri (supra), has been considered by the Apex Court in the recent decision rendered in Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197, the Apex Court has observed that leniency shown in