In matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is paramount, and petitions should be consolidated to prevent conflicting judgments.

1. Marriage of the petitioner herein (wife) was solemnized with the respondent (husband) on 29.5.2010. After few years, relationship between them become strained leading to filing of the petition for grant of divorce under S.12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1955') by the respondent / husband on 8.7.2015 before Family Court, North Baster Kanker. Thereafter, the petitioner / wife filed an application under S.9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights at Family Court, Bilaspur on 23.12.2015 stating inter - alia that the respondent / husband without reasonable cause withdrawn her from the society. Thereafter, the petitioner / wife also filed an application for proper direction on 7.10.2015 for domestic violence under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 2005') and also filed an application under S.125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance on 2.5.2016 before Family Court, Bilaspur. Thus, petition for grant of divorce firstly filed by the respondent / husband is pending consideration at Family Court, North Bastar Kanker, whereas petitioner's / wife's applications for restitution of conjugal rights filed subsequently and proceeding for grant of maintenance and application under the Act of 2005 are pending consideration at Family Court, Bilaspur.

2. Now, the petitioner / wife has filed an application under S.24 of the CPC for transfer of Civil Suit No.22A / 2015 pending before Family Court, North Bastar Kanker to Family Court, Bilaspur on the ground that she is woman having no source of income leaving separately at Bilaspur and it is absolutely inconvenient for her to attend each and every date of hearing at Family Court, North Baster Kanker and therefore, proceedings pending before Family Court, North Bastar Kanker be transferred to Family Court, Bilaspur for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

3. Reply has been filed by the respondent / husband to the said application opposing the said application.

4. Mr.Vikash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner / wife being all alone and no separate and independent source of earning and to undertake journey from Bilaspur to Kanker on each and every date of hearing and further the advocates are not allowed in the Family Court proceedings and also taking into consideration the balance of convenience, proceeding for grant of divorce pending before Family Court, North Baster Kanker be transferred for hearing and disposal to Family Court, Bilaspur where the petitioner's application for restitution of conjugal rights and application for grant of maintenance are pending and the application deserves to be allowed.

5. Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / husband, would submit that the respondent / husband has firstly filed an application for grant of divorce before Family Court, North Bastar Kanker on 8.7.2015 and application for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the petitioner / wife on 23.12.2015 at Family Court, Bilaspur, therefore, by virtue of the provisions contained in S.21A of the Act of 1955, proceedings pending before Family Court, Bilaspur has to be transferred to Family Court, North Bastar Kanker for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. He would further submit that merely because the petitioner is woman no favour should be shown to her as the respondent / husband is serving in naxalite area being police consta