- (1.) IN challenge is the judgment and order dated 28.10.2013 rejecting the application filed by the appellant -petitioner seeking transfer of the proceedings i.e. civil misc. case no. 350/2012 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") pending before the learned Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur to the Court of the learned District Judge, Churu.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. N.K. Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant -petitioner. The facts in short relevant for the purpose of instant adjudication are that the parties are married, but have yet no children. Alleging cruelty stemming from persistent demands of dowry resulting in forcible ouster from matrimonial home, the appellant -petitioner has instituted a proceeding for divorce under section 13 of the Act in the Court of the learned District Judge, Churu, which is pending. The respondent -husband as well has filed a petition before the learned Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties. This proceeding is also pending. Situated thus, the appellant -petitioner filed an application before this Court under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring the proceedings of civil misc. case no. 350/2012 pending before the learned Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur to the Court of the learned District Judge, Churu. By the judgment and order impugned, the learned Single Judge has declined to grant the prayer.
(3.) MR . Rastogi argued that the appellant being a young lady not only it would be seriously inconvenient for her to travel from Churu to Jodhpur over night, it would be highly risky as well and thus, the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with. The learned counsel has submitted that though the respondent husband has offered to meet the expenditure of two persons for her (appellant -petitioner) visit to Jodhpur in connection with the said proceeding, the same per se does not take care of her other difficulties and thus, balancing the conveniences and inconveniences of both the parties, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the petition for transfer.;