Dinesh Mehta, J. - (1.) The present transfer application has been filed by the petitioner - wife, inter alia, seeking transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 2/2017 (26/2012) in the matter of "Ranaram Veera v. Smt. Payal " from Family Court, Jaisalmer to Family Court, Jodhpur. Narrating the facts of the present transfer application, learned counsel Mr. Anuj Kala appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner contracted marriage with the respondent on 14.05.2011 at Jaisalmer; soon where after, their nuptial affinity got strained, for which, the petitioner was constrained to return to Jodhpur for living with her parents. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that there is a series of litigation pending between the parties, out of which, one is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-husband on 26.01.2017, second being petition for maintenance filed by the petitioner (wife) filed on 24.10.2017 and third being a case for domestic violence filed on 28.07.2017 in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jodhpur. He submitted that owing to the discord in the matrimony, Petitioner along with her 4-1/2 year old daughter has been living at Jodhpur with her parents, for whom taking up journey to Jaisalmer is tiresome and agonizing as it involves not only the cost but time also. She finds herself in a great difficulty travelling as Jaisalmer is about 350 kms. away from Jodhpur. He also pointed out that presently the Respondent is also posted at Jodhpur, for which he has filed cases at Jodhpur.
(2.) Opposing such request for transfer of the case, Mr. N.L. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, at the outset invited attention of this Court towards an order dated 19.05.2015, passed in S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 3/2015 (Smt. Payal v. Rana Ram) filed by none other than the petitioner herself, wherein a request identical to the one in the present application was rejected, while observing that the petitioner can avail services of a lawyer and she need not appear in-person. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of the order aforesaid, which reads thus:- "Having considered the matter in its entirety and taking into account the fact that divorce petition is pending before the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer since 2012, I am not inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioner. It may be observed here that before the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer the petitioner is not required to appear in person and she can very well avail services of a lawyer. That apart, by virtue of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act of 1955') petitioner can also claim maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses from the respondent-husband including the travelling expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no endeavour is made by the petitioner to claim maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Be that as it may it is the volition of the petitioner not to stake claim for maintenance pendente lite and expenses for proceedings, otherwise legal position in this behalf is no more res-integra by virtue of Section 24 of the Act of 1955. In totality, taking into account the fact that litigation is pending since 2012 and it is not imperative for the petitioner to appear in person before the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer, I am not persuaded to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Consequently, this transfer petition fails and same is hereby dismissed. Before parting, it may be observed that looking to the sensitive nature of dispute, which is a petition for dissolution of marriage and pending since 2012, the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer is expected to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible and decide the same at the earliest."
(3.) Mr. N.L. Joshi further submitted that the fact that the petitioner is having 4-12 years old daughter with her, by itself is not a ground for which, the matter needs to be transferred, while maintaining that these facts were very much existing when this Court had rejected petitioner's earlier transfer application, vide order dated 19.05.2015. Learned counsel for the Respondent husband on the one hand contended that the present application is hit by the principle of res judicata and on the other argued that the grounds put forth by the applicant do not justify transfer of case and that his client is ready to bear the cost of journey.;