Judgment ( 1. ) THIS transfer application has been filed under Section 24 of the Civil procedure Code by wife seeking transfer of her Case No. 118-A/2005 pending in the Family Court at Jabalpur filed under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act of annulment of the marriage. The applicant is attending the case at Jabalpur along with her father. Effort for reconciliation was made, however, reconciliation could not be made. Wife has already filed written statement. The applicant-wife is serving in Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, as such it is difficult for her to attend the case on each and every date, as such the transfer of case has been sought from Jabalpur to Bhopal. ( 2. ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The stand of applicants Counsel is that as there is nobody except father to accompany the applicant-wife to Jabalpur and she has to take the leave which is difficult to attend frequently, thus, the case be ordered to be transferred to Bhopal. ( 3. ) SHRI Priyank Choubey, learned Counsel for respondent, has submitted that no case for transfer is made out. There are two elder brothers of applicant who can accompany her beside the father to Jabalpur. No case is made out to transfer of the case from Jabalpur to Bhopal. ( 4. ) THE question for consideration is whether on the ground of convenience of wife in the facts and circumstances of the case the case can be transferred from Jabalpur to Bhopal. In Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 , the Apex Court has ordered transfer of the case as the wife was residing at Delhi and case was pending at 1100 kms away at Ara, bhojpur, she had none with whom she could stay in Ara, her parents were residing at Gurgaon. In the instant case, distance is not that much. In Reena bahri Vs. Ajay Bahri, (2002) 10 SCC 136 , the Apex Court has ordered the transfer of the case as the case was pending at Delhi, wife was residing at bombay, wife was having small child with her, she was not having anybody who could conveniently accompany her to Delhi, therefore, transfer of the proceedings was ordered to Bombay. In Simi Mehrotra Vs. In Simi Mehrotra Vs. Anil Mehrotra, (2002)10 SCC 70 , considering the age of parents and distance the transfer was ordered from Delhi to Allahabad. In Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 , the apex Court has observed that leniency shown in the matter of transfer has given rise to large number of petitions. Women take advantage of leniency shown by the Court, it was observed that leniency has been misused by the women, it is required to consider each petition on its merit, the ground to seek transfer was that the wife had a small child and that there was nobody to keep her child, child was aged 6 years, however, grand parents were available to look after the child the husband was willing to pay the expenses of travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit, thus, transfer petition was dismissed by the apex Court. The Apex Court has held thus:- "2. In support of this petition, a large number of authorities have been cited, namely, Reena Bahri Vs. Ajay Bahri, (2002) 10 SCC 136 , leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee, (2002) 10 SCC 480 , ram Gulam Pandit Vs. Umesh J. Prasad, (2002) 10 SCC 551 and rajwinder Kaur Vs. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 726. These authorities are all based on the facts of their respective cases. They do not lay down any particular law which operates as a precedent. 3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taken advantage of the leniency shown by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each Court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women. 4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. 4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the Court at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is adequately met. 5. Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the Court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out. ( 5. ) IN the instant case, as the applicant is serving at Bhopal, it appears that she is quite active and can look after her interest, it should not be difficult for her to travel to Jabalpur to attend the case and it is open for her to obtain exemption also on certain dates for sufficient cause by filing appropriate application before the Family Court. However, as the transfer is not being ordered, it is considered proper to direct that expenditure actually incurred of attending each and every date shall be borne by the husband of applicant as well as of one attendant in case attendant accompanies her; same shall be defrayed by the husband. In addition allowance of Rs. 200/- for attending on each date shall be paid by the husband. In case stay becomes necessary, for over night, in addition the husband would pay a sum of Rs. 500/- towards staying charges. ( 6. ) WITH the aforesaid direction, this MCC stands disposed of. M. C. C. dismissed.