Order

1. The present transfer application has been filed by the petitioner wife with the prayer for transfer of Case No.85/2025 (Prakash Garg Vs. Hemlata Garg) under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’) pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Sumerpur to Family Court, Pali.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-wife is presently residing at Ranawas and would be required to travel a considerable distance to attend the proceedings pending at Sumerpur as there is no direct transportation facility available between the two places. It has further been submitted that the petitioner being under an obligation to take care of a minor girl, it would be practically impossible for her to accompany the child to Sumerpur on every date of hearing.

3. Counsel further submits that other proceedings are also pending between the parties at Pali.

4. Per contra Counsel for the respondent submits that the mother of the respondent is suffering from age related ailments and he is the sole person to take care of her. Hence, it is the respondent who would be suffering a comparative more hardship in travelling from Sumerpur to Pali.

5. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

6. It is the 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.”

7. So far as the fact of the respondent’s mother suffering from any disease is concerned, neither any reply to the present petition has been filed nor any document to substantiate the said averment has been placed on record.

8. In that view of the matter, the petition pending at Sumerpur deserves to be transferred to the place where the petitioner is residing. The same is also essential in view of the fact that a minor child is in the care and custody of the petitioner-wife. The Courts have consistently held that inconvenience is more on the part of the woman and she cannot be expected to travel long distances either while accompanying the minor or while leaving them in the care of others, to attend the proceedings regularly. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri, (2002) 10 SCC 136 held 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 two points. The first relevant circumstance is that there is a very small child with the wife in Bombay and the second is that the wife does not have anybody who can conveniently accompany her to De