JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This transfer application has been filed by the petitioner-wife Smt. Tilotamma under Section 24 of the C.P.C. seeking transfer of matrimonial case filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent-husband in the Court of learned Additional Distt. Judge No. 1, Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur. The said transfer of proceedings is sought from Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur to Bikaner where the petitioner-wife Smt. Tilotamina is presently residing with her father. 3. The petitioner has averred in the application for transfer that the marriage took place between the parties on 26.11.1996 and the issue of said wedlock, a daughter, Harshita was born on 3.5.1998. Thereafter a son was also born to them on 25.1.2006. However, the parties fell apart and they are living separately for last about 2 years. The petitioner-wife has further stated that she has moved a divorce petition in the Court of learned Distt. Judge, Bikaner, which is registered as case No. 167/2007 and had also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance which is Criminal Case No. 223/2007 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.D.) No. 3, Bikaner. The petitioner has further stated that in view of distance of 510 kms. between Bayana and Bikaner, she cannot attend the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-husband at Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur and therefore, the said proceedings deserves to be transferred to Bikaner. 4. This Court in order to explore the possibility of compromise between the parties in view of two young children begotten by the said couple, directed the parties to remain present in the Court and after holding the conciliation talks with them in Chambers on 5.8.2008 and today, this Court prima facie found that the compromise between the parties did not appear to be practicable and possible. Therefore, the present petition was heard on merits. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife Mr. Prakash Sharma reiterating the grounds raised in the transfer application has submitted that the proceedings under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights may be transferred to Bikaner. These submissions as well as grounds of transfer application are strongly opposed by Mr. Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent husband. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife Mr. Prakash Sharma reiterating the grounds raised in the transfer application has submitted that the proceedings under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights may be transferred to Bikaner. These submissions as well as grounds of transfer application are strongly opposed by Mr. Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent husband. They submitted that the petitioner-wife has unreasonably left the matrimonial home and though the respondent-husband is ready and willing to take her in matrimonial home, she has deserted him and left the matrimonial home at the time of delivery of second son and since then has not returned to the matrimonial home. Therefore, the said application was filed at Bharatpur. He submits that his father and family members are running a school at Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur and in view of the petitioner-wife being qualified lady, both of them can actively work in the said school and earn their livelihood at Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur for the benefit of their family including two young children. He has denied the allegations made in the various proceedings launched by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 498A I.P.C., which proceedings are pending in different Courts at Bikaner. He has submitted that these proceedings have been filed with a view to harass him and he is required to attend these proceedings at Bikaner on various dates. 6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that there is no. force in the transfer application filed by the petitioner-wife. The respondent-husband though not very much qualified, has source of livelihood at Bayana Distt. Bharatpur by working in the School run by his father and family members, whereas the petitioner-wife is living with her father's family at Bikaner. Mere convenience of the wife and distance between the two places cannot be a sufficient ground for transfer of proceedings from one place to another. The amount of inconvenience caused in the legal proceedings is naturally accompanied by these proceedings and the petitioner-wife has already instituted three different cases against the respondent-husband at Bikaner. Mere convenience of the wife and distance between the two places cannot be a sufficient ground for transfer of proceedings from one place to another. The amount of inconvenience caused in the legal proceedings is naturally accompanied by these proceedings and the petitioner-wife has already instituted three different cases against the respondent-husband at Bikaner. It would have been much better for the petitioner-wife to restore the matrimonial home by going to her husband's place and earn their livelihood in the school, which is being run by the husband's family members, but attitude of the petitioner-wife appears to be reticent to this Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the transfer application is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******