JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody has appeared for the respondents even in the second round. Despite entering appearance on behalf of the non-petitioner, no reply to the transfer petition has been filed and thus the averments remained un controverted. According to the petitioner she had initiated proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. at Jalore in the year 1996 which is already pending, it is thereafter that in the year 1998 two proceedings being one under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Case No. 23/98) and other being under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Case No. 24/98) have.been initiated by the non-petitioner at District Court, Balotra. The allegations of the petitioner in the transfer petition are that she is having there minor children and cannot leave them all alone at Jalore for travelling to Balotra. Apart from the fact that such journey entails financial implications not bearable by her, the petitioner apprehends risk to her person also in as much as according to her in the past there has been an incident of abduction of her sister by the brother of the non-petitioner. Projecting the overall circumstances, the petitioner contends that it is in the interest of justice necessary and to safeguard the interest of destitute petitioner, both the cases require to be transferred from the Court of District Judge, Balotra to the Court of District Judge, Jalore. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the transfer petition, the transfer petition is allowed. Both Civil Misc. Case No.23/98 and.24/98 pending in the Court of District Judge, Balotra are transferred to the Court of District Judge, Jalore. The District Judge Balotra shall transmit the record to the Transferee Court forth with.Petition allowed. *******