S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. P. V. Hathi waives the service of Rule for the respondent. Looking to the nature of the case and on the request of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THE original opponent-wife-petitioner, filed this Miscellaneous Civil Application under Sec. 24 of the C. P. C. praying therein that Hindu Marriage Petition No. 79 of 1997 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar be ordered to be transferred to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 8-5-1989. Out of this wedlock, one male child, akash was born. After the marriage differences amongst the couple have arisen and ultimately it has reached to the stage where the husband filed H. M. P. No. 79 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar, for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce. After service of notice of the petition aforesaid, she filed reply to the petition and refuted all the allegations made therein. The petitioner, on 30/09/1997, filed an application under Sec. 24 of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar, in which she prayed that the husband-respondent be directed to pay to her Rs. 10,000. 00 p. m. , by way of interim maintenance for herself and Rs. 5,000. 00 p. m. , towards maintenance and education of the minor Akash and Rs. 20,000. 00 for conveyance from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar and Advocates fees. It is not in dispute that this application filed by the petitioner-wife under Sec. 24 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955, is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar. 5,000. 00 p. m. , towards maintenance and education of the minor Akash and Rs. 20,000. 00 for conveyance from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar and Advocates fees. It is not in dispute that this application filed by the petitioner-wife under Sec. 24 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955, is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar. ( 4 ) THE petitioner prayed for transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 79 of 1997 from the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar to the City Civil Court, ahmedabad on the grounds, namely (a) she is afraid that being a lady and looking to the conduct of the husband-respondent that once he had tried to strangulate her, it is dangerous to her life to go to Bhavnagar alone every time to attend the Court proceedings, (b) she is staying at Ahmedabad, (c) she is having a minor child, (d) in these hard days it is difficult for her to go to Bhavnagar to attend the Court proceedings, (e) the respondent can very well come and attend the proceedings at ahmedabad. ( 5 ) THIS application has been contested by the respondent-husband. He filed a detailed reply to the same. In the reply, he has come up with the case that this application is nothing but an application filed at the instance of her Advocate who is staying at Ahmedabad and going to attend the Court proceedings at Bhavnagar on her behalf. It is in fact, for convenience of the Advocate that this application has been filed. It has next been stated that the petitioner has not attended till date, the proceedings of the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 79 of 1997 in the Court of civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar. It is further stated that the application in fact contains vague and incorrect statements. The ground of having apprehension of danger to life is wholly frivolous and baseless. Summing up his defence in the reply, the defendant-husband-respondent stated that there are no valid grounds to transfer the proceedings from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad and the application requires to be rejected. It is further stated that the application in fact contains vague and incorrect statements. The ground of having apprehension of danger to life is wholly frivolous and baseless. Summing up his defence in the reply, the defendant-husband-respondent stated that there are no valid grounds to transfer the proceedings from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad and the application requires to be rejected. ( 6 ) ORALLY, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this court three more facts, namely (i) that the mother of the petitioner has expired, (ii) that her father is a retired old man and (iii) that the husband-respondent is not residing at Bhavnagar but he is having an Orthopedic clinic at Botad and the distance between Botad and Bhavnagar is about 70 kms. , and distance between botad and Ahmedabad is about 140 kms. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the facts of this case, it is just, reasonable and in the interest of justice the H. M. P. No. 79 of 1997 be transferred from the Court of civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. Carrying this contention further the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sec. 24 of the C. P. C. , empowers this Court to transfer case from one Court to another Court and it is sole discretion of the Court. Where the Court considers a case to be appropriate for transfer it can order accordingly either on application of parties to the suit or suo motu. Where the Court decides to transfer the suit suo motu, in that case, even the parties are not required to be given notice or opportunity of hearing. So in view of this liberal provision of Sec. 24 of the C. P. C. , the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that looking to the inconvenience to be caused to the lady to attend the proceedings of the H. M. P. No. 79 of 1997 at Bhavnagar, her prayer may be granted and this case may be transferred to the City Civil court at Ahmedabad. ( 7 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) SECTION 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as under :"24. ( 7 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) SECTION 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as under :"24. (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage - (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under subsec. (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. . . . " ( 9 ) FROM mere reading of this provision, I find that it is sole discretion of the court, though a judicial discretion to transfer an appropriate case from one Court to another Court. In this section, it is not provided by the legislature that only on certain grounds, the Court has powers to transfer a case from one Court to another Court either on the application of the parties thereto or suo motu. So each case has to be considered on its own facts. One of the important considerations in the matter of transfer of the case from one Court to another Court on the application of a party thereto is that prosecuting a case at particular place may cause inconvenience and hardship to he/she or it. While considering inconvenience or hardship of a party to the litigation approaching for transfer thereof by this Court, from one Court to another Court, the corresponding injury and hardship of the other party has also to be kept in mind. While considering inconvenience or hardship of a party to the litigation approaching for transfer thereof by this Court, from one Court to another Court, the corresponding injury and hardship of the other party has also to be kept in mind. There may be other grounds on which transfer of the case from one Court to another Court by this court either on the application of the parties thereto or suo motu may be ordered and that is where one of the parties to the litigation had any apprehension of danger to his/her life or hurt etc. , from the other party to the litigation at the place where the case is pending. Yet another ground may be that where either of the parties to the litigation have apprehension that from the Court he or she or it may not get justice. ( 10 ) IN the case in hand, though the petitioner has pleaded a ground that looking to the conduct of the husband that once he had tried to strangulate the petitioner it is dangerous for her life to go to Bhavnagar alone every time to attend the Court proceedings, but I find sufficient merits in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that these allegations as made are vague and lacking in necessary particulars. Moreover, this apprehension of endanger to life is only in case where she goes alone to Bhavnagar to attend the proceedings. That can easily be ruled out by taking some other person with her to Bhavnagar as and when she goes there to attend the proceedings of the case out of which this m. C. A. , has arisen. On this ground, I do not find it to be a fit case where the h. M. P. No. 79 of 1997 should be ordered to be transferred from the Court of civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar to the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. ( 11 ) THE next ground which has been given by the petitioner for transfer of the case from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad is of hardship and inconvenience to her to attend the Court at Bhavnagar. It is no doubt a fact that the petitioner has engaged an Advocate to defend her in these proceedings at Bhavnagar who is staying at Ahmedabad. It is no doubt a fact that the petitioner has engaged an Advocate to defend her in these proceedings at Bhavnagar who is staying at Ahmedabad. He is going to attend the proceedings at Bhavnagar from ahmedabad and there may be some semblance of justification in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that it is the convenience of the Advocate that this application has been moved in this Court by petitioner. But in absence of any more material and more so a substantial material, it is difficult to accept it to be the only ground as given out in this application for transfer of the case aforesaid from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad. The petitioner, in her application filed under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claimed Rs. 20,000. 00 for expenses of litigation. The component of Rs. 20,000. 00 are two, namely, (i) the expenses to be incurred by her for conveyance from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar and (ii) advocate fees. Conveyance naturally includes expenses of conveyance of taking advocate or sending Advocate alone to Bhavnagar. It is the belief and confidence in a professional by a litigant is the foremost important consideration to engage an advocate. Merely because the respondent has chosen to file the matrimonial case in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar, though if we go by the provisions of Sec. 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the said proceedings could have also been filed in any competent Court at Ahmedabad, the petitioner cannot be compelled by the husband or dictated by him that she has to engage an advocate only from Bhavnagar. As stated earlier, it is the faith, confidence and belief of a litigant in an Advocate which is the consideration. She could have engaged Advocate either from Ahmedabad or elsewhere in the State or if necessary from other place throughout the country. But at the same time, another question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner in such a matrimonial case can be saddled with heavy cost of conveyance and fees of the advocate to be brought by rival party in the litigation from the place other than the place where the case is pending. But at the same time, another question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner in such a matrimonial case can be saddled with heavy cost of conveyance and fees of the advocate to be brought by rival party in the litigation from the place other than the place where the case is pending. In case it is so ordered then there may be cases where the petitioner may not be in a position to bear out this heavy expenses and a question may seriously come for consideration of the Court whether the husband in the petition can be saddled with by the Court with this heavy monetary liability. So each case has to be decided on its own facts. I find in this case that though the respondent is an Orthopedic Surgeon but if we go by his income-tax returns and further with the normal cost of litigation in the country it may be difficult for him to bear out this heavy expenses of conveyance and even of the Advocate engaged by the petitioner from Ahmedabad. ( 12 ) THOUGH the right of the litigant to engage an Advocate of his/her choice cannot be denied or restricted but at the same time in matrimonial case, the Court has to consider the paying capacity of the other spouse also, who has to bear this expenses. In appropriate case, the Court may be correct and justified in its approach to award litigation expenses to the wife only according to the pocket of the husband. So option to engage any Advocate of her choice cannot be curtailed that to the extent aforesaid, certainly the husband may not be saddled with heavy amount of fee and other expenses to be incurred by the Advocate to attend the case at Bhavnagar. ( 13 ) FROM the facts of this case, it is difficult to accept that this application is filed by the petitioner only at the instance of her Advocate who is going from Ahmedabad to attend her case at Bhavnagar. It is not the case of convenience of the Advocate for which this application has been filed. ( 13 ) FROM the facts of this case, it is difficult to accept that this application is filed by the petitioner only at the instance of her Advocate who is going from Ahmedabad to attend her case at Bhavnagar. It is not the case of convenience of the Advocate for which this application has been filed. However, in the facts of this case, where both the parties are not residing at Bhavnagar, the mother of the petitioner has expired, her father is an old retired person and she is having minor child to look after and distance in between Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar is plus 200 kms. , coupled with the fact that in case an Advocate is going to Bhavnagar to attend the case on her behalf it will heavily cost to the other side, it is in the interest of both the parties that the case may be transferred from Bhavnagar to any Court at Ahmedabad. The respondent, in his reply, is unable to show any greater hardship to him in case the matrimonial dispute which is pending at Bhavnagar is transferred in some Court at Ahmedabad. In the reply to this application, he has not pointed out any such serious prejudice will be caused to him in case this matrimonial case is transferred from Bhavnagar to any Court at Ahmedabad. Though it is true that she has not gone to Bhavnagar to attend this case, but it is a fact that she has to attend the Court not only alone, but along with her witnesses also. Otherwise also, I do not find any substance in the opposition of the prayer made of the petitioner in this Miscellaneous Civil Application by the respondent. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent, during the course of argument has given out that if ultimately this Court grants the application of the petitioner, then the case may be transferred in any Court of Ahmedabad (Rural ). In case the case is transferred to City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, what the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent shall be deprived of one right of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no objection in case the case is transferred in the competent Court in Ahmedabad (Rural ). In case the case is transferred to City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, what the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent shall be deprived of one right of appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no objection in case the case is transferred in the competent Court in Ahmedabad (Rural ). ( 15 ) IN the result, this Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed and the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 79 of 1997 from the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Bhavnagar, is ordered to be transferred to the District Court Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. It is for the District Judge to assign this petition to any appropriate competent Court in his District at Ahmedabad. The Miscellaneous Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. .