Judgment ( 1. ) APPLICANT (wife) has directed this application under Section 24 of the C. P. C. against the non-applicant seeking transfer of Hindu Marriage Case No. 0/00 pending in the Court of IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Ujjain, to the competent Court at Ratlam. ( 2. ) IN the application, it is alleged that the applicant was married to non-applicant at Village Bajenda, Tehsil Namli, District Ratlam on 20. 4. 1988 and had three children born out of the said wedlock aged about 9 years, 7 years and 5 years respectively. It is stated that the non-applicant behaved with cruelty and in May-June, 2000 he turned her out from the matrimonial house for bringing money from her father and thereafter she is living along with his father at village Bajeda, Tehsil Namli, District Ratlam. That on 5. 9. 2000, the applicant filed one application against the non-applicant in the Court of J. M. F. C, at Ratlam under Section 125 of Cr. P. C for grant :of maintenance. The non-applicant with the intention to harass; the applicant, filed an application in the Court of IIIrd ADJ, Ujjain on 19. 10. 2000 seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the application, it is also stated that she has a reasonable apprehension that when she will go to Ujjain for attending the aforesaid case, the non-applicant shall quarrel with the petitioner and may behave with cruelty. In view of the past acts of the non-applicant she. has a grave danger to her life from the non-applicant when she will go to attend the Court at Ujjain. On the aforesaid grounds, she filed an application for transfer of the said Civil case pending in the Court of IIIrd ADJ, Ujjain to competent Court at District Ratlam. . ( 3. ) NOTICE of the aforesaid application was duly served on the non-applicant. But no one appeared on behalf of the non-applicant to oppose the application filed on behalf of the applicant. ( 4. . ( 3. ) NOTICE of the aforesaid application was duly served on the non-applicant. But no one appeared on behalf of the non-applicant to oppose the application filed on behalf of the applicant. ( 4. ) CONSIDERING the submissions of the learned Counsel and on perusal of the allegations made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant as also the copies of certain documents; I am satisfied that the case filed against the applicant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the non-applicant, in the Court of ADJ, at Ujjain deserves to be transferred to the Court of District Judge at Ratlam. The following judgments of the Apex Court relied on by the Counsel for applicant also justified transfer of the aforesaid case from Ujjain to Ratlam; (1) AIR 2000 SCW 3213 , Theja V. Nagarjuna v. Nagarjuna; (2) VII (2000) SLT 476=air SCW 2001 2301, Mamidi Hemakumari v. Rambabu Mamidi; and (3) VI (2000) SLT 723, II (2000) DMC 590 (SC), AIR SCW 2000 1733, Ravinder Kaur v. Hitendarsingh. ( 5. ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand as also the law applicable, the application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 24 of the C. P. C. is allowed and the Hindu Marriage Case No. 0/00, Mishrilal S/o Shankarlal v. Smt. Mayabai W/o Mishrilal, pending in the Court of IIIrd ADJ, Ujjain is withdrawn from the Court of IIIrd ADJ at Ujjain and transferred to the file of District Judge Ratlam for disposal according to law. The District Judge may either try the aforesaid case himself or assign it to a Court of competent jurisdiction under him. Learned District Judge Ujjain shall send the record of the case to the transferee Court at the earliest possible with intimation to the Counsel for parties appearing before the said Court. Copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for information and compliance. No orders as to costs.