ORAL ORDER

1. Present application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) is filed by the by the applicant – wife to transfer HMP No.2 of 2017 pending with the learned competent court, Porbandar to the learned Family Court, Junagadh.

2. It is the case of the applicant that she resides at Ahmedabad and got married with the opponent as per Hindu rites and rituals, whereas the respondent – opponent has preferred the aforestated HMP in the Court at Porbandar only with a view to harass the applicant mentally as well as physically. It is submitted at bar that it will not be possible for the applicant to travel and it would be physical and mental harassment to travel on each adjournment from Junagadh to Porbandar. In support of the application, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has relied upon decision in case of Sumita Singh V. Kumar Sanjay and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 396, in case of Shobhnaben D/o Pyarelal Kanojia reported in (2004) GLR 893, in case of Sonal Shreyansh Vasa V. Shreyansh Hitenbhai Vasa reported in (2013) 3 GLR 2759 as well as in case of Sunandaben Sanjay Patil Vs. Sanjay Narayan Patil rendered by this Court on 11.7.2008.

3. Learned advocate for the respondent is permitted to file reply with the Registry. Learned advocate for the respondent has opposed the petition and raised objection for transfer of present matter inter-alia on the submission that matter is substantially progress. Two minor children are living with the husband. It is also submitted that proceedings under section 498(A) of IPC is initiated and wife is regularly attending the same. Therefore, there is no reason to transfer the present proceedings from Porbandar to Junagadh and submitted to dismiss the petition. I am not impressed by this submission. Least convenience of wife is more important and required to be adhered to.

4. Having heard the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, it is not in dispute that the applicant is the wife of the opponent and there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties to the proceedings and further, the applicant is residing at Junagadh at her parental home. In case of Sumita Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that wife’s inconveniency must be looked at. The purpose of section 24 of the Code is merely to confer on the Court a discretionary power and therefore, while acting under section 24 of the Code, the Court may or may not in its judicial discretion transfer a particular case. Thus, the power under section 24 of the Code is discretionary in its nature and can be exercised at any stage. In the present case, the fairness of judicial proceedings is not questioned by the applicant, but on the ground of conveniency, the applicant is keen to transfer HMP from Porbandar Court to Family Court, Junagadh. In light of this position, the Court cannot ignore inconveniency of party, more particularly, the applicant being a lady, who requires more safety and security in journey from unwarranted elements and further, the applicant being lady, who faced much more incoveniency during journey from her current place.

5. In view of the above circumstances, and considering the facts narrated herein above which is sufficient to accept the present application and accordingly, present application is allowed and it is ordered that HMP No.2 of 2017 pending with the learned competent court, Porbandar be transferred to the Family Court, Junagadh. With this, present Misc. Civil Application stands allowed.

(J. C. DOSHI,J)

Radhika