( 1. ) This is an application preferred by the wife under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Civil, seeking transfer of the proceedings instituted on behalf of the respondent/Husband, before the Family Court on the ground that the husband has desereted the wife and she is not in a position to attend the proceedings at Gwalior as she is residing at Village Hingona, District Morena, which is situated at a distance of about 50 Kilometers from Gwalior.

( 2. ) The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner and respondent were married at Morena but due to alleged cruel behaviour of the Husband, the wife was compelled to leave the Matrimonial home since then she is residing at her parents house. The applicant has further demonstrated that the cruel behaviour of the respondent as also his family members, it directed towards their ill-gotten demand of dowry. It is also submitted that the Husband has beaten her when she was coming out of the Family Court on date 8.4.2009 about which a prompt FIR was lodged on the same day at Gwalior and the Husband has threatened the wife for facing dire consequences, therefore she has expressed her unwillingness and fear of going to Gwalior, by projecting the apprehension of danger of her life, while seeking transfer of the petition preferred by her husband under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.

( 3. ) Shri R.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported as 2004 (4) MPHT 42 Mamta v/s Brijesh to demonstrate that the difficulties of the wife in a matrimonial dispute deserves to be considered. He also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court reported as 2004 (4) MPHT 187 Smt. Kirti Chouksey v. Rajiv Chouksey to substantiate the same submission. He also relied upon another judgment of this Court reported as 2006 (1) MPLJ 463 Vandana v/s Angad Singh Jadav to demonstrate that difficulty to attend the hearing may be seen as a practical difficulty for the wife to attend the hearing at Gwalior.

( 4. ) Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the non-applicant/husband has objected to the transfer of the proceeding by denying each and every averment of the applicant/wife. Shri Shukla submits that no cruelty was played upon the wife, and no demand of dowry was made. He submits that entire amount of maintenance has been deposited by the husband and on none of the grounds the matter deserves to be transferred, as Morena is sitauted at a distance of 45-50 Kilometers from Gwalior. Shri Shukla relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as 2007 (2) MPLJ 269 Rakhi Mishra v. Sanjay Mishra to demonstrate that in the event of furnishing of an undertaking by the husband, this Court has not entertained the prayer for transfer of the proceedings. Shri Shukla submits that the Non-Applicant/Husband is willing to file an undertaking that he would not harass the wife, in case the proceeding of Divorce continues at Gwalior.

( 5. ) I have heard Shri R. S. Kushwaha learned counsel for the applicant and Shri H.K. Shukla learned counsel for the respondent and perused the available documents filed by the litigating parties.

( 6. ) The Supreme Court has laid down in a judgment reported as 2001 (10) SCC 41 Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another that the convenience of wife must be looked at by the Court while exercising power to transfer the case under section 24 of the Code. This Court also find that the convenience of the wife would be a paramount consideration, in a situation where wife is living separately from her husband and there exist no difficulty for the husband to attend the hearing of the case, at a place which is situated within 50 Kilometers from Gwalior, (as per the showing of the Husband himself) whereas the applicant/wife would be required to travel from her village Hingona to nearby district Court Morena.

( 7. ) A perusal of section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure demonstrate that it empowers the High Court to transfer any suit, appeal or othe