Mohinder Pal, J.:— In the pending suit filed by the husband at Rajkot under section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for divorce, respondent/wife has moved the present application seeking transfer of that case from Rajkot to Jamnagar where she is residing with her parents.
2. It is case of the applicant that apart from herself, she is taking care of her small child who has been deserted by her father and as it is difficult for her to travel from Jamnagar to Rajkot to attend the proceedings, the petition preferred by the husband at Rajkot be transferred to Jamnagar. It is also contended that, keeping in view the financial hardships being faced by the wife, the matter is required to be transferred. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicant/wife relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seema v. Rakesh Kumar. reported in (2000) 9 SCC 271.
3. This application has been contested by the respondent by filing reply wherein it has been stated that apart from the proceedings at Rajkot, the applicant/wife has also filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act against the husband and other members of his family which is pending at Jamnagar and, under these circumstances, this application was liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. It is not in dispute that the criminal complaint filed by the wife aganst the husband is pending at Jamnagar which is being attended by the husband and his parents. Once the proceedings initiated by the wife are being attended by the husband and his parents, I do not find any reason to transfer the proceedings initiated by the husband at Rajkot to Jamnagar. In absence of any cogent reason, no order for transfer of the petition can be passed. The proposition of law contained in the case of Seema v. Rakesh Kumar. (supra) is not in dispute, but each case has its own facts. As such, this authority relied upon by the applicant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Resultantly, this application deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. Rule is discharged.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also requested that since the proceedings pending at Rajkot were stayed by this Court vide its order dated 17.09.2014, the stay should be continued for another four weeks. Court has considered this submission. Since the main application has been dismissed, the request of learned counsel for staying the proceedings at Rajkot is rejected.