ORDER

They are heard and perused the record.

1. This Misc. Civil Case has been filed by the petitioner/wife under section 24 of the C.P.C. for transfer of a case bearing RCSHM No.667/2022 filed by the respondent/husband under section 13(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending in the Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Guna.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner’s and the respondent’s marriage was solemnized in the year 2018. However, soon thereafter some matrimonial discord took place between the parties. The petitioner/wife has already lodged four cases against the respondent/husband relating to their matrimonial disputes viz; under section 498-A of the IPC bearing RCT No.2211/2020, second case is filed under section 9 of the Restitution of Conjugal Rights Act, 1955 bearing RCS HM No.46/2020, third case is under section 11 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing case No.MJC 89/2020 and fourth case is under section 125 of Cr.P.C. bearing case No.229/2021 for maintenance.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the divorce petition has been filed by the respondent/husband in April, 2022, and the distance between Guna to Indore is 330 km. and considering the fact that there is no other person to accompany the petitioner from Guna to Indore, it would be difficult for her to attend the Family Court at Indore. It is also submitted that the respondent/husband is already attending all the other cases at Guna as aforesaid, and he would not have any difficulty if the aforesaid case of divorce is transferred to Guna.

4. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another decided on 26.2.2001 reported as AIR 2002 SC 396 and in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Katthik Sha reported as 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband has submitted that no case for transfer is made out as the petitioner herself is also a Software Engineer, she is well travelled, and is earning handsomely, and thus, it cannot be said that she cannot travel from Guna to Indore all by herself and even otherwise, she has her father, who is in police, and brothers at her home to accompany her. It is also submitted that although four false cases have been registered by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband at Guna, however, even in those cases she and her witnesses are not appearing, and in fact, in the case filed under section 498-A of the IPC, the petitioner/wife, her father and brother were required to be summoned in the Court by issuance of bailable warrants. Thus, it is submitted that if the present case is also transferred to Guna, this matter would also be dragged by the petitioner and her parents with a view to further harass the respondent. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner/wife was also employed in Indore earlier.

6. Counsel has also submitted that the Indore is the natural place of the territorial jurisdiction, as their marriage was solemnised at Indore. It is also submitted that the applicant is not only a B.E. in Electronic and Communication Engineering, she has also completed the same from Indore only and has resided for a considerable period of time at Indore, and was also at Indore subsequent to her graduation after 2015. The documents regarding which has also been filed on record wherein, her salary slip is also filed demonstrating that she was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month in the year 2018. Subsequently, they have also went to Chandigarh for their respective employment. It is also submitted that although the applicant is capable of travelling alone, however, she can still accompany by her father and two brothers both aged about 26 and 29 years old. It is also submitted that the applicant’s application for interim maintenance has also been denied by the Family Court on account of her handsome salary, which she i