JUDGMENT V.S. Kokje, J. 1. There is another case Civil Revision No. 446/93 (Rajendra Kumar v. Anita), arising out of the same proceedings before the Trial Court. Both these applications have been simultaneously heard and are being decided by this order. 2. In Civil Revision No. 144/93 order dated 10.3.1993 is under challenge on the ground that the Trial Court erred in not deciding the issue as regards jurisdiction, the objection as to prematurity of the action was wrongly rejected, the prayer for in camera hearing was wrongly rejected, the objection under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act was not properly decided and that the Trial Court has erred is not framing preliminary issues and ignoring the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Civil Revision No. 446/93 the order dated 8.11.1993 has been challenged and it is prayed that proper order for custody of the child and his welfare be passed. 3. The case arises out of a matrimonial, dispute. By order dated 10.3.1993, which is under challenge in Civil Revision No. 144/93, the Trial Court has rejected the objection that it had no jurisdiction to try the case. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnised in Indore city. The District Court at Indore, therefore, will be one of the Courts having jurisdiction to try the case. The applicant's contention otherwise is meaningless. 4. The second contention of the applicant before the Trial Court was as regards enforcement of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed in Case No. 12-A/91. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the applicant was free to get the decree executed in the manner it can be executed in the Court which had passed the decree. The decree passed in one case by one Court cannot be executed in the proceedings of another case before another Court. The conclusion of the Trial Court that there is no necessity of complying with the provisions of Section 23(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act as that has to be done at the time of final disposal of the case can also not be challenged successfully. Similar is the position regarding imposition of special costs. 5. As regards custody of the minor child, the Court had given a direction that the minor will be produced in the Court and then the question of access to the child shall be decided. Similar is the position regarding imposition of special costs. 5. As regards custody of the minor child, the Court had given a direction that the minor will be produced in the Court and then the question of access to the child shall be decided. Nothing can be said to be wrong in this. As regards in camera hearing also the Trial Court has committed no illegality or irregularity in ordering that at the evidence stage, the Trial would be conducted in camera. I find no force in Civil Revision No. 144/93, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. As regards Civil Revision No. 446/93, it relates to the temporary custody of an access to the minor child. The matters have to be decided according to its own discretion by the Trial Court and I do not find that any illegality or irregularity was committed by the Trial Court in exercise of its discretion. This Court also made an attempt to bring the parties together at-least on the question of custody of the minor child and the access to the child. But, it appears that the relations between the parties are so strained that they did not agree on anything and started making allegations and counter allegations against each other. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 7. This revision application also deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, in the interest of both the parties, the trial of the case deserves to be expedited and, therefore, it is directed that the District Judge, Indore shall get the case transferred to his Court and dispose it off within a period of three months from 1.3.1993. The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Indore on 1.3.1994. The costs of both these revision applications shall be paid by the applicant to the non-applicant. Counsel's fees Rs. 250/- in each case. The record of the case be sent immediately to that Court with a copy of this order.