J. G. CHITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is for a prayer to transfer Hindu Marriage Suit No. 234 of 1996 filed by the respondent against petitioner under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Hindu Marriage Act for convenience) which is pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bhopal. The petitioner averred that the matrimonial petition filed by her bearing No. 243 of 1996 for restitution of conjugal rights is pending for disposal in the Court of IXth Additional District Judge, Indore and for the purpose of harassment to her the respondent, her husband has filed the said petition in District Court, Bhopal for getting a decree of divorce against her. She contended that she is wholly unemployed and dependent on her parents for her livelihood having been driven out by respondent from Bhopal and, therefore, it is not possible for her to go to Bhopal on and often for attending the said Court proceedings. ( 2 ) PUSHING further the contentions of the petitioner, Shri M. G. Upadhyaya argued that the petitioner is unable to incur the expenditure for the purpose of going to Jabalpur for moving a transfer application for getting transferred that matrimonial suit from District Court, Bhopal to District Court, Indore. Shri Vivek Dalal appearing for respondent submitted that there is no substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner and there is no need of transferring the said suit from District Court, Bhopal to District Court, Indore. He prayed that this petition be dismissed. ( 3 ) SHRI M. G. Upadhyaya placed reliance on following judgments; (i) K. P. Govil v. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya, Jabalpur, 1987 JLJ 341 : ( AIR 1987 MP 228 ); (ii) M. P. S. R. T. C. v. Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, 1989 JLJ 730 : ( AIR 1990 MP 17 ). He also pointed out provisions of Section 21-A of Hindu Marriage Act in support of his argument. Shri Dalal placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the matter of Abdul Tayyab v. Union of India, 1976 MPLJ 767 : ( AIR 1977 MP 116 ). ( 4 ) THE judgment in Abdul Tayyab's case (supra) is a judgment of Full Bench of this Court consisting of five Judges. The judgment in K. P. Govil's case (supra) is judgment of Full Bench of this Court consisting of three Judges. ( 4 ) THE judgment in Abdul Tayyab's case (supra) is a judgment of Full Bench of this Court consisting of five Judges. The judgment in K. P. Govil's case (supra) is judgment of Full Bench of this Court consisting of three Judges. In K. P. Govil's case (supra) the Full Bench of this Court held that the expression "in respect of cases arising in the revenue districts of Gwalior, Shivpuri, Datia, Guna, Vidisha (Bhilsa), Bhind and Morena" means the place or places within the specified revenue districts where the whole or a part of cause of action arises. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place or places within the specified revenue district, the Gwalior Bench will have jurisdiction. Shri Upadhyaya placing reliance on this judgment submitted that in the present case the marriage was solemnised at Indore, the petitioner is residing at Mhow and, therefore, the cause of action is also arising within the territorial jurisdiction of District Court, Indore and, therefore, when her earlier matrimonial petition is pending for decision in District Court, Indore in which she has made prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, in all fitness of things the matrimonial petition filed by respondent later on in District Court, Bhopal needs to be transferred to District Court, Indore. ( 5 ) IN the matter of Abdul Tayyab v. Union of India (supra) Full Bench of this Court held that"in fact the High Court of Madhya Pradesh means as Article 216, Constitution of India provides, the Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court that means the Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court have no doubt jurisdiction to hear cases from all over the State. The place of sitting is provided for convenience of the litigating public and, therefore, sitting at different places they may hear cases from the respective districts only. It has been pointed out in the said judgment that "the Presidential Order (dated 28-11-1968) establishing permanent Benches, therefore, carved out exclusive jurisdiction to be exercised by the Judges while sitting at Indore or Gwalior. The phrase "any matters connected therewith" in Section 51 (2) of the States Reorganization Act is wide enough to confer on the President the power to provide for jurisdiction of Permanent Benches. The phrase "any matters connected therewith" in Section 51 (2) of the States Reorganization Act is wide enough to confer on the President the power to provide for jurisdiction of Permanent Benches. Making such provision does not amount to curtailment of jurisdiction at the principal seat and there is no contravention of Article 214, Constitution of India. " ( 6 ) K. P. Govil's case (supra) is dealing with a writ petition in which the petitioner prayed for exercising the powers conferred on Gwalior Bench in view of Article 226 of the Constitution and that case deals with a different aspect, different than one which is demanding an order of transfer of a case from District Court, Bhopal. In Abdul Tayyab's case (supra )a petition was moved by an Advocate practicing in High Court at a particular place contending that particular type of cases must be instituted at that particular place. The facts of the said case are also different from the facts of the present case. ( 7 ) IN the matter of M. P. S. R. T. C. v. R. T. A. Rewa (supra), the case was revolving around the proposal for a new area of modified scheme dealing with temporary permits on ad hoc basis to be given to private bus operators and in that matter provisions of Sections 68-D (3), 68-F (1) and 68-FF of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were to be considered. In that matter the Full Bench of this Court held that"judges of High Court sitting at any seat can render a valid and binding decision for the entire State on any legal issue except that of 'vires' which is decided at the Main Seat. " ( 8 ) THE conclusive ratio is that a Judge of this Court sitting at any Seat can render a valid and binding decision for the entire State on any legal issue, except that of vires which is decided at main seat. However, the exercise of jurisdiction should be guided by the legal precedents, provisions, rules, judicial discipline and the Roster. The exercise should be cautious and it should not be transgressing above mentioned factors, and self imposed judicial discipline. However, the exercise of jurisdiction should be guided by the legal precedents, provisions, rules, judicial discipline and the Roster. The exercise should be cautious and it should not be transgressing above mentioned factors, and self imposed judicial discipline. ( 9 ) SECTION 21-A of Hindu Marriage Act provides :- (1) Where- (a) a petition under this Act has been presented to a district court having jurisdiction by a party to marriage praying for a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 or for a decree of divorce under Section 13, and (b) another petition under this Act has been presented thereafter by the other party to the marriage praying for a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 or for a decree of divorce under Section 13 on any ground, whether in the same district court or in a different district court, in the same State or in a different State. the petitions shall be dealt with as specified in sub-section (2 ). (2) In a case where sub-section (1) applies :- (a) if the petitions are presented to the same district court, both the petitions shall be tried and heard together by that district court; (b) if the petitions are presented to different district courts, the petition presented later shall be transferred to the district court in which the earlier petition was presented and both the petitions shall be heard and disposed of together by the district court in which the earlier petition was presented. (3) In a case where clause (b) of sub-section (2) applies, the court or the Government, as the case may be, competent under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to transfer any suit or proceeding from the district court in which the later petition has been presented to the district court in which the earlier petition is pending, shall exercise its powers to transfer such later petition as if it had been empowered so to do under the said Code. ( 10 ) THOUGH it has been provided in Section 21a (i) (a) that where a petition under this Act has been presented to a district Court having jurisdiction by a party to marriage praying for a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 or for a decree of divorce under Section 13 and another petition under this Act has been presented thereafter by the other party to the marriage under Section 10 for a decree for judicial separation or for a decree of divorce under Section 13 on any ground whether in the same district court or in a different court in the same State or in a different State, the petition shall be dealt with as specified in sub-section (2 ). Sub-section (2) (a) provides that if the petitions are presented to the same district court, both the petitions shall be tried and heard together by that district Court and sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) provides that if the petitions are presented to the different district courts, the petition presented latter shall be transferred to the district in which the earlier petition was presented and both the petitions shall be heard and disposed of together by the district Court in which the earlier petition was presented. ( 11 ) SHRI Vivek Dalal has submitted that the petition which has been presented by the present petitioner happens to be one connected with prayer for restitution of conjugal rights and, therefore, Section 21a of the Act would not be applicable and thus, the argument advanced by Shri Upadhyaya for transfer of matrimonial petition pending in District Court, Bhopal would not be entertainable and no relief can be granted in respect of that. When there is no provision dealing with such a situation in which the wife has submitted a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the husband has thereafter filed a petition for divorce or judicial separation later on in a different district court, the provisions of Section 21a (1) and (2) will have to be followed on similar footings and similar basis. The situation will have to be dealt with keeping in view the provisions of Section 21a (1) and (2 ). ( 12 ) THE present matter is different one than the matters on which the learned counsel appearing for the parties have placed reliance for their submissions and prayer. The situation will have to be dealt with keeping in view the provisions of Section 21a (1) and (2 ). ( 12 ) THE present matter is different one than the matters on which the learned counsel appearing for the parties have placed reliance for their submissions and prayer. For dealing with the present matter provisions of Section 21a can be brought into operation for meeting the ends of justice. ( 13 ) SHRI Upadhyaya submitted that the petitioner is a poor lady discarded by her husband and has no source of livelihood and, therefore, she is unable to present any petition at Jabalpur main Seat. It cannot be so totally. The Government has provided scheme for rendering legal aid to such litigants. The petitioner can get such assistance from the Government for presenting the petition at main seat Jabalpur which is having territorial jurisdiction over district Court Bhopal in view of the rules prevalent. When such remedy is available to the petitioner for redressing her grievance and getting proper relief in view of Section 21a of Hindu Marriage Act, I do not find any need of exercising jurisdiction to transfer said suit pending in district Court Bhopal in view of Section 24, C. P. C. Let the petitioner follow the remedy available to her. ( 14 ) AT this stage Shri Upadhyaya submitted that this petition be transferred to Jabalpur main Seat for appropriate orders. I do not find any necessity of transferring this petition to Jabalpur at this stage when the entire order has been completed in open Court by oral dictation. ( 15 ) THUS, the petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .