Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. In this M. J. C. application, the petitioner, who is the wife of the opposite party, seeks for a direction from this court to transfer matrimonial Suit No.6 of 1994 from the Court of the Additional District judge I, Bhagalpur to the court of the district Judge, Purnea. 2. The short relevant fact of this case is that the petitioner was married to the opposite party on 22-1-1987 at purnea and out of wedlock a male child was born. The opposite party, who is the husband of the petitioner, filed the aforesaid matrimonial suit before the district Judge, Bhagalpur for dissolving the marriage between them on the ground of cruelty, misbehaviour and ill-treatment of the petitioner towards him as well as towards his family members. The said suit is still pending before the district Judge, Bhagalpur. The opposite, party is permanent resident of Bhagal pur whereas the petitioner is at present residing at her fathers place at Purnea. 3. In the said suit, after notice on the petitioner, she appeared in the case and filed written statement denying the allegations made and prayed that the suit is fit to be dismissed. Further, she alleged that the opposite party misbehaved with her and that she has been driven out of the house by him. It is also alleged that he has taken the custody of the child forcibly and deceitfully. 4. The trial court, after appearance of the parties, gave chance to the parties to come to an amicable settlement but that failed. 5. Allegations and counter allegations have been made in various affidavits filed in this Court by both the parties against each other which are yet to be considered in the suit itself. In that view of the matter, I do not consider it expedient to deal with the same for the purpose of consideration of the prayer of the petitioner. The admitted position is that the marriage of the petitioner and opposite party was solemnised at purnea. 6. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act) deals with Court to which the petition shall be presented. The admitted position is that the marriage of the petitioner and opposite party was solemnised at purnea. 6. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act) deals with Court to which the petition shall be presented. According to the said provision, every petition under the Act f is to be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction - (i) the marriage was solemnized, or (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or (iii) the petitioner is resided together, or (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this. Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as per the said provision, the matrimonial suit in question is maintainable at Bhagalpur where the opposite party claims to have resided together and also in the District Court at Purnea where, admittedly, the marriage was solemnised. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is admittedly residing at Purnea with her father, who is a retired ailing person. As such, she is facing serious inconvenience infrequently coming to Bhagalpur for contesting the matrimonial suit on each and every date. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel that the opposite party is a young man employed as an officer in the Bank and is a man with good financial background. As such, according to him, the opposite party can easily prosecute his case at Purnea. It was, thus, submitted by him that the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is fit to be allowed and the matrimonial suit should be transferred to District court, Purnea, which Court has the jurisdiction to try the said suit under section 19 of the Act. According to learned Counsel, the petitioner also apprehends danger to her life if the case is allowed to be prosecuted at Bhagalpur. 9. On the other hand, Mr. According to learned Counsel, the petitioner also apprehends danger to her life if the case is allowed to be prosecuted at Bhagalpur. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Anish chandra Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the petitioner has no problem for contesting the case at bhagalpur because her close relatives are at Bhagalpur and the petitioners as well as her parents and brother very often come and live there. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has independent income, besides her fathers income from agricultural land, rent from the house etc. , and can bear the cost of litigation. According to the learned Counsel, the opposite party seriously apprehends danger to his life if he is required to visit Purnea to prosecute his matrimonial suit. 10. It was suggested by the learned counsel for the opposite party that in case this Court find it expedient to transfer the case from Bhagalpur, then this Court should consider the difficulties and apprehension of both the parties and direct for hearing of the suit at a neutral place which, according to him, may be at Monghyr or Khagaria. In this regard he referred to the decision of the calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Pritikona Banerjee V/s. Rabi Shankar banerjee, AIR 1987 Calcutta 269, in which the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court after considering all aspects of the matter directed for transfer of the matrimonial suit from the court of learned District Judge, howrah to the Court of the learned district Judge, Burdwan although the prayer on behalf of the petitioner was to transfer it to Suri. 11. From the facts stated in the said judgment it is not clear as to which court had jurisdiction to try the said suit. 12. It has rightly been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this Court cannot transfer the suit to a court which is not competent to hear as per the aforementioned provisions, contained in Sec.19 of the Act. In support of this, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme court in the case of Lakshmi Narain V/s. First Addl. Dist. Judge, AIR 1964 S. C 489. 13. In support of this, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme court in the case of Lakshmi Narain V/s. First Addl. Dist. Judge, AIR 1964 S. C 489. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the said decision will have no application to the facts of the present case, as the case before the supreme Court was not dealing with the scope of Sec.19 of the Act. 14. It is true that in the said decision, the Supreme Court was not considering the scope of Sec.19 of the Act. In the said case the Supreme court was considering the scope of Sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the Code) vis-a-vis Section 3 (1) and 21 of the Bengal, Agra and assam Civil Courts Act (in short the bengal Act) and not with the scope of section 19 of the Act but, in my opinion, the ratio laid down therein squarely covers the case instituted under section 19 of the Act. 15. Section 22 of the Code vests power to transfer suits which may be instituted in more than one Court. Sec.23 provides for filing of an application under Sec.22 before the appellate Court to which several courts having jurisdiction are subordinates. 16. The said provisions are not relevant in the instant case. The other provision relating to transfer and withdrawal of any suit, appeal or other proceeding in the Code is Sec.24, the scope of which read with the provisions of the Bengal Act were under consideration before the Supreme court in the case of Lakshmi Narain (supra ). 17. The facts of the said case were that the appellant, as plaintiff, instituted suit in the court of Civil Judge, Mathura for possession of certain properties in january, 1949 against respondents 2 and 3. The said suit stood dismissed in november, 1951. The unsuccessful paintiff preferred a first appeal to the high Court of Judicature at Allahabad which remained pending from 3rd february, 1952 till 23rd April, 1952 when it was notified to the parties that the appeal had been transferred to the court of the District Judge, Allahabad for hearing. This order was passed by the learned Chief Justice in Chambers, under Sec.24 (l) (a) of the Code, on his own motion without notice to the parties concerned. 18. This order was passed by the learned Chief Justice in Chambers, under Sec.24 (l) (a) of the Code, on his own motion without notice to the parties concerned. 18. The said order of the learned chief Justice was passed in view of the legislation which amended a large number of statutes, one of them being the bengal Act. Sec.21, clause (a) of sub-section (1) was amended so as to substitute ten thousand rupees for five thousand rupees, thus enabling the District Courts to entertain first appeals up to a valuation of ten thousand rupees. 19. The appellant appeared before the Court and raised a preliminary objection as to its jurisdiction to hear the appeal which was overruled observing that it could not contravene the order of the High Court and that the remedy of the appellant, if any, lay in the High court itself. Thereupon the appellant moved the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. The writ petition was placed before a learned single judge who dismissed the petition in view of a Division bench ruling of the Allahabad High court. Against that order, the appellant preferred appeal which was also dismissed summarily on the ground that the question raised in the appeal was concluded by the decision of the division Bench. The appellant moved the High Court for grant of certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court which was granted and the matter was finally considered by the Supreme Court. 20. The Supreme Court while considering the scope of Sec.3 (1) of the bengal Act held that the High Court alone is competent to hear and decide the appeals pending before it. In other words, the District Courts were not competent to hear such appeals, and, therefore, the High Court could not have transferred those appeals to be heard by the District Judge or Additional District Judge, inasmuch as Section 24 of the Code postulates that the Court to which the suit, appeal or other proceeding is transferred, is competent to try or dispose of the same. 21. 21. The wording of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec.24 of the code is absolutely clear which vests power in the High Court or the District court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it, at any stage, for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. Even in sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec.24 of the Code, the power to transfer the suit, appeal or other proceeding after withdrawal from a court subordinate to it to any other court is confined to a court which is competent to try and dispose of the same. 22. There is no provision pointed out by Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, in the code or in the Act that vests power in the High Court to transfer any such suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in court subordinate to it to a court which is not competent to try or dispose of the same. 23. In the present case, the admitted position is that none of the courts at Monghyr or Khagaria, as suggested by Mr. Sinha, is competent to try the suit under Sec.19 of the Act. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the aforementioned suggestion of Mr. Sinha cannot be accepted. 24. In M. J. C. No.206 of 1988, a bench of this Court comprising Hon ble mr. Justice N. P. Singh (as he then was), after considering the fact that it shall be very harsh and unjust for the petitioner, who was a lady, to defend the case at nalanda where it was instituted by the husband opposite party, as she was admittedly residing with her father at patna where the marriage was solemnised, directed for transfer of the case from the Court of the District Judge, nalanda to the Court of District Judge, patna, on placing reliance on the division Bench decision of the Calcutta high Court in the case of Smt. Pritikona banerjee (supra), though it was held that the Court at Nalanda also had the jurisdiction. 25. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has not been able to distinguish the present case from the aforementioned case. 26. 25. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has not been able to distinguish the present case from the aforementioned case. 26. Accordingly, this M. J. C. application is allowed and Matrimonial suit No.6 of 1994 is transferred from the court of the Additional District judge I, Bhagalpur to the Court of the district Judge, Purnea. 27. However, having regard to the fact that the matrimonial suit was instituted in the year 1994, the District judge, Bhagalpur is directed to transmit the record of the case to the District judge, Purnea within two days of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall submit her written statement, if not already filed, within a month from today before the District judge, Purnea, who shall dispose of the matrimonial suit as early as possible and in any case, within six months from the date of receipt of the records from the bhagalpur Court. Application Allowed.