JUDGMENT 1. - This application under section 24 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code has been filed for transferring the Case No. 69/1992, Harish Vs. Kamla , pending before the Family Court, Ajmer, to any other Court. 2. Brief relevant facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties took place on 2.9.1984, at Agra according to Hindu rites and customs. On account of family disturbances, the petitioner had to leave her matrimonial home at Ajmer, on 12.2.1992, and since then she has been residing with her father at Agra, who is a very poor person. The petitioner filed an application for grant of maintenance at Agra Court, and that application was allowed. The petitioner also filed two other cases at Agra, and they are still pending. In the meanwhile, the non-petitioner filed a petition for divorce at Family Court, Ajmer. On receipt of a summon, the petitioner appeared on 18.4.1992, before the Family Court Ajmer. She went there with her father. The case was adjourned to 22.5.1992. Again the case was adjourned to 8.7.1992 and 5.8.1992, when the petitioner was coming out of the Court, the respondent, and his friend Vijay gave a threatening to the petitioner and her father that either they should with-draw the case filed by them at Agra, otherwise they would disfigure the face of the petitioner by throwing acid, when next time they appear at Family Court, Ajmer. The petitioner approached the police authorities at Ajmer from 22.5.1992 to 24.5.1992, but the S.H.O. did not care to lodge F.L.R. and under these circumstances, the petitioner had to file an F.I.R. on 25.5.1992 to the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer, who registered the same. Again the petitioner attended the Family Court at Ajmer on 8.7.92, alongwith her father. The respondent, who was in company of one Vijay again gave threat to the petitioner and again the petitioner lodged F.I.R. before the S.P. Ajmer and prayed for police protection. The petitioner and her father are residents of Agra. Petitioner's father is poor person and under these circumstances, it is very difficult for them to contest the cast at Ajmer Court, where the case is adjourned from time to time. The petitioner and her father are residents of Agra. Petitioner's father is poor person and under these circumstances, it is very difficult for them to contest the cast at Ajmer Court, where the case is adjourned from time to time. It was prayed that the file of the case be transferred from Family Court, Ajmer, to the Court of District Judge, Dholpur, Bharatpur, Alwar or even to Family Court Jaipur, This application is duly supported by an affidavit of the petitioner and copies of various F.I.Rs. filed by the petitioner before the S.P. Ajmer and Police Station Agra. 3. The respondent filed a reply to the said application denying that any harassment or torcher was caused to the petitioner or her father. The respondent further mentioned that the Agra Court has already granted maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. and the respondent has been sending maintenance amount to the petitioner regularly. It has been further mentioned in the reply that the petitioner with the intention to harass the respondent, his family and younger brothers had filed a false case under Section 498A, 323 and 526 IPC at Agra, which has been registered as Case No. 28/1992. Not only this, the petitioner has also filed another case, under Section 506 IIC, being Criminal Case No. 63/92, and both these cases are pending at Agra Court. It has been further mentioned that the petitioner is in habit of making false allegations every now and then. No threat was given to the petitioner or to her father to disfigure her face by throwing acid. The apprehensions of the petitioner are absolutely false and misconceived. It was prayed that the application should be dismissed. 4. In her rejoinder to the reply, the petitioner alleged that the respondent did not file any affidavit of Mr. Vijay,who was accompanied by the respondent, when they gave threat to the petitioner. Alongwith the rejoinder the petitioner submitted copies of letters written by her from Ajmer, to her father regarding the demand of dowry by the other side. 5. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.P. Goya], argues that the petitioner belongs to weaker section of the society. She was forced to leave matrimonial home by the respondent, which is apparent from the letters written by her to her father time to time. 5. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.P. Goya], argues that the petitioner belongs to weaker section of the society. She was forced to leave matrimonial home by the respondent, which is apparent from the letters written by her to her father time to time. The financial condition of the father of the petitioner is not very good. It is not possible for the petitioner to attend the Family Court, Ajmer from time to time from agra. It is not only costly affair but there is every possiblility of danger to the life of the petitioner and her father. The respondent already made two attempts for disfiguring the petitioner in company of Vijay and under these circumstances, the petitioner had to file F.I.Rs before the S.H.O. and when he did not take any actions on the F.I.R. the petitioner had to approach S.P. Ajmer. Under these circumstances, he argues that it is a fit case, in which the case should be transferred from Family Court, Ajmer, to any of the Courts as mentioned in the transfer application 6. In support of his arguments, Mr. Goyal placed reliance on C.S. Shyam lal Vs. C. S. Srikantalah (AIR 1990 Karnataka 146) and Sm. Pritikona Banerjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Banerjee (AIR 1987 Calcutta 269) . 7. On the other hand, Mr. Arjun Karnani, counsel for the respondent (husband) argues that the petitioner made false reports before the police authorities only with a view to create a ground for transfer of the case. The father of the petitioner is wealthy and there is no question of financial difficulty to the petitioner in attending the Family Court, Ajmer. He argues that all the relevant witnesses are residing at Ajmer, and in case the case is transferred to Dholpur, or to any other place, the respondent would not be in a position to produce the witnesses. He also argues that on the ground of security, the case should not be transferred from one Court to another and on that point, he placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court, in Ranjit Singh and another Vs. Popat Rambhaji and others ( AIR 1983 SC 292 ) . 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. From the order sheets of the Family Court, Ajmer, it is apparent that the case has been adjourned frequently. Popat Rambhaji and others ( AIR 1983 SC 292 ) . 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. From the order sheets of the Family Court, Ajmer, it is apparent that the case has been adjourned frequently. It is also apparent from the affidavit of the petitioner that she has to depend on her father, who is a poor man. She cannot attend the Court at Ajmer, alone but she has to come with her father. In the F.I.R. dated 25.5.1992, submitted before the S.P. Ajmer, the petitioner has mentioned that when she was coming out from the Court on 22.5.1992, Harish, Vijay and some other persons, who were standing outside the Court, gave threat to the petitioner. Again the petitioner attended the Family Court on 8.7.1992, when the similar incident took place and she again reported to the S.P. Ajmer on 8.7.1992. It was mentioned in the F.I.R. that when the petitioner was coming out of the Court, Harish, Vijay and two other students came to her near State Bank of India. They stopped father of petitioner and gave threat. 9. In C.S. Shyamala's case (supra) the Karnataka High Court transferred the case only on the ground that the petitioner (wife) was unable to go to Tumkur, on account of family distress and that her father was finding it difficult to support her. 10. In the present case, the transfer has been sought not only on the ground of financial difficulties but also on the ground that the life of the petitioner and her father is not safe, in case they attend the Family Court at Ajmer. Counsel for the respondent submits that only on the ground of safety the case cannot be transferred from one Court to another 11. I have gone through the judgment reported in Ranjit Singh and another (supra). The facts of the case were that a criminal complaint was lodged at Pune, by the complainant petitioner. Later on, the petitioner submitted a transfer application for transferring the case from Pune to Indore,on the ground of danger of his safety at Pune. I have gone through the judgment reported in Ranjit Singh and another (supra). The facts of the case were that a criminal complaint was lodged at Pune, by the complainant petitioner. Later on, the petitioner submitted a transfer application for transferring the case from Pune to Indore,on the ground of danger of his safety at Pune. In that case the State counsel undertook to extend all possible facilities as directed by Hon. Supreme Court to ensure security and safety to the petitioner and under these circumstances the Supreme Court rejected the transfer application giving necessary directions to the Commissioner of Police, regarding safety of the petitioner. But in the present case, on every date the petitioner and her father had to face the threat and harassment by the respondent and his colleagues and no safety was provided by the police authorities. Further more, the trial court has awarded maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of only Rs. 500/- p.m. If on every date the petitioner and her father have to attend the Family Court at Ajmer, they cannot do so in this amount. The financial position of the father as stated by the petitioner is not very good. 12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the case should be transferred from the Family Court Ajmer. 13. Consequently, I withdraw case No. 69/1992, Harish Kumar Vs. Smt. Kamla , from the Family Court, Ajmer, and transfer the same for trial/disposal to the Court of District Judge, Bharatpur. 14. Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Bharatpur, on 13.9.1993. 1 also direct the Family Court, Ajmer, to transfer the record of case No.69/92, to the Court of District Judge, Bharatpur, immediately. *******