M.JAGANNADHA RAO, J. (1) THE office report dated 16/02/2000 states that the paper publication which was made by the petitioner for the purpose of substituted service does not conform verbatim to the notice which was required to be published according to the copy given by the Supreme Court to the petitioner. The office is, therefore, right in pointing out that the petitioner ought not to have abridged the substance of the notice without seeking appropriate approval of the Registry or of the Court. (2) WE, therefore, do not approve of the action of the petitioner in this behalf. (3) HOWEVER, we notice that the petitioner is a house-wife with a child staying at Delhi who has been fighting this case against her husband, the later residing at Chennai. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are not directing fresh publication. (4) THE notice published in the newspapers be treated as sufficient service. We may also find that the notice gave the date of appearance as 31/01/2000. The respondent was also required to file his reply on or before 24/01/2000. It was also stated that in default of appearance the matter would be decided in the absence of the respondent. (5) IT appears that on 31/01/2000 none appeared for the respondent and the Court passed an order adjourning the matter by three weeks. Thereafter, a fresh paper publication was made on 10-2-2000. It is stated that the copy of this publication has also been filed in the Family Court, Chennai where the respondent is appearing personally. (6) AS the respondent is absent, he is set ex parte. In the circumstances mentioned in the petition for transfer we, therefore, direct the transfer of Case No. O.P. No. 201/99 pending in the Family Court, Chennai to the District Court at Delhi. It will be open to the learned District Judge at Delhi to list it before the appropriate Court. (7) THE Transfer Petition is allowed accordingly.