PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner wife of the respondent is seeking transfer of the Civil Misc. Case No. 6/2001 Kavindra Rao v. Smt. Nayana pending in the Court of District Judge, Jhalawar to the Family Court, Udaipur on the ground of convenience and on the allegation that she had apprehension of danger of her life It is also submitted that the distance from Udaipur to Jhalawar is about more than 350 Kms and she being a lady cannot travel to that much of distance to attend the Court proceedings. It is also submitted that a criminal case under Section 498A Cr.P.C. is also pending at Udaipur against the non-petitioner where the non-petitioner is to come. It is also submitted that proceeding under Section 10 125 Cr.P.C. was also lodged at Udaipur, but that proceeding has come to an end. The petitioner also pleaded that she is not in a financial position to attend the case at Jhalawar.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that this is not a fit case for transfer on the request of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 1999. The petitioner left the non-petitioner on 30.1.1999. The non-petitioner served a notice upon the petitioner on 12.2.2000 and, thereafter. the petitioner lodged the FIR. It is also submitted that the respondent is prepare to bear the expense of travelling of the petitioner from Liclaipur to Jhalawar and. therefore, there is no reason for transfer of the case from the Court of District Judge, Jhalawar to the Family Court, Udaipur. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that since the case at Jhalawar is pending in the Court of District Judge, Jhalawar and not in the family Court, therefore, the petitioner need not to remain present on every date of hearing, therefore, she will not suffer any inconvenience. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme C Dun delivered in the case of Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha, AIR 1997 SC 1036 and judgment of this Court delivered it the case of Smt. Chand Kanwar v. Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, 1997 30 kb, LC (Raj.) UC 594 in support of contention that when the respondent is prepare to make the payment of the expenses of travelling of the petitioner then there is no reason for transfer of the case.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Archana Singh v. Alok Pratap Singh, (2003) 3 SCC 744 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that offer to pay the travelling expenses to the petitioner wife is not a substitute for the difficulties which she will have to undertake for contesting the case at Thane all the way from Patna.;