This is an application under section 34 CPC, read with section 21 A(2)(B) of Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant-wife has filed a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation against the respondent-husband, in the Court of District Judge, Satna: while, respondent-husband has filed a case No. 238/99 in the Court of 7th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The case pending at Gwalior is prayed to be transferred at Satna for the sake of the convenience of the wife and also to avoid conflicting decisions. The learned counsel for the respondent has objected the jurisdiction of this Bench on the ground that Satna falls under the jurisdiction of main seat at Jabalpur. In the circumstances, this Bench has no jurisdiction to transfer the case from Gwalior to Satna. Reference is made to a notification of Central Government dated 20th November 1968 wherein it has been made clear that the Bench at Gwalior shall exercise jurisdiction and power for time being vested in the High Court in respect of the cases arising in Revenue Districts of Gwalior, Shivpuri, Datia, Guna, Vidisha, Bhind and Morena. From this notification it would appear that this Bench shall exercise powers in respect of the cases arising out of the aforesaid Districts. In a decision of this Court in case of Archna v. Vijay Narendra Kumar Kashyap, reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 63, where wife had filed a petition at Indore and husband filed petition for divorce under section 13 at Bhopal. Subsequently, wife applied for transfer of the case from Bhopal to Indore. It was held that the Bench at Indore has no jurisdiction to transfer a case from Bhopal to Indore as District Bhopal falls in the jurisdiction of main seat at Jabalpur. However, the situation in the present case is different as the case prayed for to be transferred from Gwalior arises out of the Revenue District falling under the jurisdiction of the Bench at Gwalior. However, the situation in the present case is different as the case prayed for to be transferred from Gwalior arises out of the Revenue District falling under the jurisdiction of the Bench at Gwalior. The learned counsel of the respondent has referred another decision of this Court in Radhahai v. Rajendra Prasad, 1982 MPWN 145 and argued that since the wife's case has also been converted into divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, both the cases cannot be consolidated for the purpose of trial. However, in the same case the order of transfer from one Court to another was ordered for the sake of the convenience of the wife. In the similar situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court also in case of Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry reported in AIR 1981 SC 1143 held that the power to transfer suits are not curtailed or excluded by section 21 and 21A of Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submits that he is ready to bear all the expenses of the wife and in the circumstances the question of inconvenience to the wife does not arise. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in case Smt. Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar v. Dr. Deviprakash Thakar reported in 1997 Supreme Appeals Reporters (Civil) 82. However, in that case the transfer of case was declined in view of husband being a medical practioner and in his absence from Bombay, difficulties are to be faced to the patients. No such situation has been pointed out in the present case and, therefore, merely bearing of expenses by the husband is no ground to turn down the petition of the applicant-wife. The application is allowed and it is directed that H.M.A. No. 238/99 pending in the Court of 7th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge. Gwalior shall stand transferred to the Court of District Judge Satna.