Vasanthakumar, J.:—

This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C seeking transfer of Matrimonial Case pending on the file of the Family Court to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli.

2. Few facts to briefly state are:— One Sri S.B Shivaprakash has initiated legal action against his wife Smt. Nanda Kishori seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce before the Family Court at Bangalore. According to the pleadings Marriage was solemnised according to Hindu Rites at Hubli in the year 1976 and that two children were born out of wedlock and spouses were living at Bangalore, and differences arose in the year 1988.

3. This Civil Petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of the proceedings pending on the file of the Family Court at Bangalore to jurisdictional Court at Hubli where wife is living with her parents after leaving the matrimonial home. Causes attributed by the wife for leaving matrimonial home were that here husband used to illtreat her and further used to come to matrimonial home in a drunken state in the company of another lady and when he was confronted about his behaviour, she was abused and she was silenced under threat to her life. Further, wife has pleaded that inspite of reconciliation and good offices of the elders, husband has not made any attempt to take her back and that she is being accommodated by her aged parents who are stationed at Hubli. Reasons for seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Bangalore Family Court to Hubli are that she has no male companion to accompany her to Bangalore on every date of hearing and that her aged parents being not in a position to travel along with her and more than any other factors that she is under a reasonable apprehension that her husband during her visits to Bangalore to attend the matrimonial proceedings may not only attempt to abuse her but may also by his acts of commission endanger her personal life with the connivance of rowdie elements and as such she is mortally afraid of leaving Hubli the place where she has been nurtured and nourished and protected by her parents to a place that is to Bangalore where she has no one to seek solace in case of threat to her life and that too when she has no male elderly and protective companionship to accompany her to attend the Family Court at Bangalore, further that initiation of legal action at Bangalore as not only being motivated but vindictive. Along with the Civil Petition seeking transfer, she has also filed an affidavit detailing the cases warranting transfer. As against this, husband has filed a detailed counter denying all the charges made against him and particularly negativing the averments about his attempting to cause harm to her personal life.

4. The husband in short while negativing the charges made against him by his wife as being baseless has attributed that the main causes for wife leaving the matrimonial home was to be with her aged parents and further the nature of wife being nagging, picking up quarrels without rhyme or reason, suspicious about social attitude of husband and refusal of the husband to seek transfer from Bangalore to Hubli as demanded by her. Further husband has stated that his wife is having her own sisters family at Bangalore and as such her apprehensions are not only baseless but imaginative in character and far from realities of the situations existing. Except judicial precedents, there are no statutory guidelines enunciated. Power of transfer must always be guided with the object of subserving the ends of justice, and the cases espoused by the parties seeking transfer depends upon various circumstances and contemplate myriad situations, in the complexities of life. No straight jacket formula could be envisioned.

5. The cardinal principle for the exercise of power under Section 24 C.P.C is that ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding.

6. It is true that the plaintiff as arbiter litis has the right to choose any forum the law allows him and it is substantive right like a right of appeal. As a general rule Court should not interfere unless expenses and difficulties of trial would be so great as to lead injustice or the suit has been filed in a particular Court for purpose of working injustice. What the Curt has to consider is whether the party has made out a case to justify it in closing the doors of the Court in which the suit or proceedings is brought by the plaintiff and leaving him to seek his remedy in another jurisdiction.

7. The fact that more than one Court has jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the Court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular Court convenient to her/him. The mere convenience of the parties or nay one of them may not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that the trial in chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are on the increase where a party seeking justice, chooses a forum most inconvenient to the adversary with a view to depriving that party of fair trial.

8. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani . 1979 2 SCR 178., the Supreme Court has observed:

“Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the Court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power to transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touch-stone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any Court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the Court may weigh the circumstances.”

In matrimonial matters, discretionary power of the Courts to transfer cases under Section 24 C.P.C must be exercised with circumspection since both the parties who were enjoying matrimonial bliss, when once the difference has surfaced between them, they would not mince words in casting aspersions on the conduct of another and conduct themselves in such a manner of reaching the point of no return. Discretionary power should point out to promote justice and prevent miscarriage by enabling the Courts to do justice, in myriad situations all of which cannot be envisaged. Approach which needs to be adapted in the absence of statutory guidelines should be based on a pragmatic approach having in view of judicial precedents established for over a long period. Subjugation of woman in a traditional, conservative, male oriented society as Indian history reveals, it is but natural for an unemployed dependant woman who does not live with her husband for the causes best known to the spouses to seek refuge with her parents or brothers and sisters who share her feelings in the time of distress.

9. Society has awoken from its slumber and has by various ameliorative legislative enactments has attempted to improve the social status of a woman from the traditional Bond of Slavery as adage goes, that:

When a woman is in her teens she is a slave to her parents, in her adolescence she is a slave to her husband, in her evening of her life, she is a slave to her children.

To quote Sydney Brandon in his treatise 1. In violence of family:

To live under perpetual authority of a man whom one hates is itself a state of slavery but to be compelled to submit to his embraces is a misfortune too great a slavery.”

As such, whenever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer in matrimonial matters Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the spouses and the behavioural pattern of their standard of life antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereon and after the snap of the knot which resulted in marriage, the circumstances of either of the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance of life.

10. In the instant case, husband is gainfully employed in Syndicate Bank, and no where in his Counter there is a whisper that he is looking after the maintenance of his wife and child and that wife is in a financial sound position to make trips to Bangalore from Hubli during the period of litigation, where finality of litigation is uncertain due to unending chapters of forensic fight.

11. It is but natural for a party in such circumstances to make a plea to the Courts of equity to transfer the proceeding to a place where they would be in a best position to defend their case and in the instant case, wife who has sought transfer of the matrimonial proceedings from Bangalore where she has no moorings to a place wherein she is leading life of destitution with her aged parents could be characterised as either perverse, vindictive or based on no materials.

12. Smt. Jayadevi… v. Basavaraj…. . 1989 2 KLJ 579., this Court has observed at para-4:—

“Inspite of the assurances held out by the husband if the wife is not willing to take the opportunity of attending the Court at Bagalkot on the date of hearing there must be strong reason for her behaviour and conduct. It appears to me that there are only two reasonable probabilities and they are that she is unwilling to join her husband or that she is mortally afraid of stepping into Bagalkot for fear of losing her life. As already mentioned she seems to be a victim of fear psychosis I do not think it would be either fair or reasonable to compel her to attend the Court at Bagalkot by the force of an order to be passed by this Court.”

13. As such, with a view to promote substantial justice, in the absence of disentitling factors or just circumstances, this Petition seeking transfer from Family Court Bangalore to jurisdictional Court at Hubli deserves to be allowed.

14. For the reasons stated above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The case in M.C 217/91 which is pending on the file of the Family Court at Bangalore City is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Principal Civil Judge Court Hubli for trial. The Family Court at Bangalore is directed to transmit the records expeditiously to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, after giving due notices to both the parties may proceed with the trial and dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law.

15. Accordingly, this Civil Petition is allowed.