Order

1. The present transfer applications have been filed with the prayer for transfer of Civil Misc. Case Nos.28/2016 & 29/2016 under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and Section 25 & 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 respectively, pending before Additional District Judge, Bali (Camp Desuri), District Pali.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-wife is presently residing at Makrana and would be required to travel a considerable distance to attend the proceedings at Bali, District Pali. It is submitted that the petitioner-wife has a minor child under her care and due to additional financial constraints, she would face serious hardship in undertaking such travel repeatedly on each date of hearing.

3. It is further averred that maintenance proceedings are also pending between the parties at Makrana. It has therefore been prayed that the pending application at Bali be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Makrana.

4. A reply to the transfer petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent and it has been submitted that both the parties had settled their dispute out of Court vide compromise dated 21.12.2020. As per the agreement, the petitioner admitted that she had received all her Stridhan back and further that she would not initiate any proceedings for maintenance. Despite the compromise having been entered into between the parties, an application under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the petitioner on 08.03.2022.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, after receiving the permanent alimony, the petitioner is pursuing the proceedings malafidely and hence, the present petition deserves to be rejected.

6. However, on a specific query been put to Counsel for the respondent, he fairly admitted that no amount whatsoever was paid by the respondent to the petitioner in terms of the said compromise. He admits that the compromise was never acted upon.

7. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.

8. It is a well-settled proposition of law that in matrimonial matters generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering the plea of transfer. In N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, (2022 INSC 1310) (decided on 18.07.2022), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.

9. Dealing with the ground of a minor child being in the care and custody of the petitioner-wife, Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri; (2002) 10 SCC 136 observed as under:

“2. The wife has a child, approximately three years old, with her in Bombay. She avers that she has no source of income and no one to travel with her from Bombay to Delhi. In the circumstances, she is unable to satisfactorily defend the divorce petition. It is contended on behalf of the husband that the transfer petition should be dismissed, and that he will pay for the wife's transport between Bombay and Delhi along with an escort, whenever required, as also pay for the travel of her witnesses in the matrimonial proceedings.

3. This misses