S. C. PANDEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil procedure, filed by the applicants who are the defendants in civil suit filed by the respondent under Section 12 (1) (b) and (c) of the Hindu marriage Act read with Section 13 (l) (iiij thereof. ( 2 ) THE non-applicant/respondent claims that the marriage "of the applicant No. 1 and non-applicant has not been performed completely in accordance with rights and customs of the community and, therefore, the marriage was not valid. He also claimed in the alternative divorce under Section 13 (1) (ui) of the Hindu marriage Act on the ground that the applicant no. 1 Ku. Rajni was suffering from epilepsy. The claim of the non-applicant was that the applicant No. 1 was granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month and rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. This amount was not paid to her despite the order dated 1. 10. 1997 passed by the Trial Court. The other ground for transfer is that the applicant no. 1 was resident of Bhopal and she was living with her parents and, therefore, it would be inconvenient to travel to Harda. ( 3 ) IN reply to the application for transfer, the non-applicant, inter alia. stated in paragraph 5 of his reply that on 13. 1. 1998, he had complied with the order dated 1. 10. 1997 passed by the Trial Court and has deposited the amount of Rs. 14,750/- in the C. C. D. The non-applicant has filed a photocopy of the receipt as Annexure R-1. dated 13. 1. 1998 showing the deposit of Rs. 14. 750/ -. He denied other allegations. ( 4 ) IN view of this matter, the grievance of the applicant No. 1 that she was not in a position to go to Harda is met because the court below has already granted her Rs. 5. 000a by way of litigation expenses. This amount is for travelling from Bhopal to Harda. The marriage of the parties was performed at harda and, therefore, it would be convenient to the non-applicant to lead evidence regarding the customs and the rights prevalent in the community to which the parties belonged. The other ground is that the applicant No. 1 was suffering from epilepsy. This amount is for travelling from Bhopal to Harda. The marriage of the parties was performed at harda and, therefore, it would be convenient to the non-applicant to lead evidence regarding the customs and the rights prevalent in the community to which the parties belonged. The other ground is that the applicant No. 1 was suffering from epilepsy. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that the case has been pending since 19. 10. 1995 and has gone to the stage of issues and, therefore, it is in the interests of justice that the Trial Court had directed to proceed to frame the issues and decide the case at the earliest. This is also one of the grounds for refusing the transfer application filed by the applicant. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed. .