Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition is preferred by the applicant/wife under section 24 of C. P. C. for transferring the R. C. S. No. 582-A/07, filed by the respondent/husband in the Family Court Bhopal from such court to Family Court Indore. ( 2. ) AS per averment of it, the applicant got married with respondent on dated 15. 12. 2006 at Bhopal. Subsequent to it, on arising the matrimonial dispute between them aforesaid suit under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act (In short "the Act") for judicial separation has been filed by the respondent at Bhopal. As per further averment the applicant is residing with her parents at Indore. The father of the applicant on account of his old age and being patient of blood pressure while the mother on account of her physical problems of the old age are not in a position to accompany with her for defending the case at Bhopal. The presence of the mother is also regularly required at home; as the applicant"s younger sister Ritika is prosecuting her study at Indore. Whereas the appellant being from traditional family could not travel all alone without any companion and in the above mentioned circumstance no male or competent person is available in her parental family with whom she could come to defend the case at Bhopal. Apart this she did not have any source of income. Thus, she is not in a position to afford the traveling and other expenses in this regard. ( 3. ) IN reply of the respondent by denying the grounds of transferring the case it is stated that on two occasions the Family court Bhopal has given the exemption from personal appearance to the applicant but on third occasion such application was dismissed on dated 30. 1. 2008 and proceeded ex-parte against her. In such circumstance, the applicant is not contesting party hence; she does not have any locus-standi to file the instant petition. The same is filed with intention to prolong the trial. 1. 2008 and proceeded ex-parte against her. In such circumstance, the applicant is not contesting party hence; she does not have any locus-standi to file the instant petition. The same is filed with intention to prolong the trial. The non-applicant is working as Manager in Joom Developers Private Ltd. Bhopal and simultaneously prosecuting his study of MBA from Punjab Technical university and if the case is transferred from Bhopal to Indore then it would be difficult and inconvenient for him to prosecute the case there, because on taking leaves from his office to attend the case he may loose his job whereas in view of availability of various conveyance between these two cities the applicant may conveniently come and defend the case at Bhopal. It is also pleaded that his mother is suffering from blood pressure with Cardiac disease along with bone disease, on account of which she could not walk properly and taking continuous treatment, some medical papers are also annexed in this regard. The sick maternal grant mother aged 82 years is also residing with him, who being patient of various diseases could not walk without help of walker. She is also suffering from cardiac, blood pressure and diabetes. So for applicant is concerned her uncle and other relatives are residing at Bhopal, hence, she has no difficulty even on staying at Bhopal. There is no sufficient cause for transferring the case. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of the petition is made. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant Shri N. S. Ruprah by mentioning the facts stated in the petition said that in the matter of difficulty and hardship the woman requires more consideration in comparison of man and in view of such principle the aforesaid case should be transferred and prayed for allowing this petition. ( 5. ) IN response of aforesaid argument Shri Amit Verma, counsel for the respondent by referring the facts stated in his reply and placing his reliance on case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 said that in view of this decision the grounds put forth by the applicant for transferring the case are not sustainable. ) IN response of aforesaid argument Shri Amit Verma, counsel for the respondent by referring the facts stated in his reply and placing his reliance on case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 said that in view of this decision the grounds put forth by the applicant for transferring the case are not sustainable. In addition he has given an undertaking on behalf of the respondent that he is ready and willing to afford the traveling and other expenses of the applicant along with a companion on defending the case at Bhopal but he specifically said that respondent shall pay the actual expenses of the applicant. ( 6. ) BEFORE giving any findings on the merit of the petition, I would like to mention here the principle laid down by the Apex Court in "anindita Das"s case" (Supra) : " 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 merits. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out. " 6. Accordingly, we dismiss the transfer petition. We however, direct that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and very occasion when she is required to attend the court at Delhi. ( 7. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out. " 6. Accordingly, we dismiss the transfer petition. We however, direct that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and very occasion when she is required to attend the court at Delhi. ( 7. ) IN view of the aforesaid dictum on examining the case at hand it is undisputed fact that the applicant did not have any child; so such question does not require any consideration in this matter and in view of undertaking of the respondent to pay the travel and other expenses the ground of the applicant that she has no source of income is adequately met. Besides this the transfer of the case has not been claimed on any other ground. So for the health condition of her parents is concerned, although some averments are made in the petition but the same are not supported by any admissible evidence. Hence, it could not be inferred that her father may not accompany her to defend the case at Bhopal. ( 8. ) THE case of Anindita Das"s (Supra) is directly applicable to the present petition. Although counsel for the applicant has cited the following case laws of the Apex Court in the matter of (i) Anita thukarl Vs. Stabir Singh Thukral reported in (2004) 13 SCC 363 (ii) Sangeeta @ Shreya Vs. Prasant Vijay Wargiya reported in (2004) 13 SCC 407 and (iii) Sheela @ Anupama Mahesh Khole vs. Mahesh Suresh Khole reported in (2004) 13 SCC 417 but all the aforesaid cited cases are decided considering that the concerned petitioner/applicant/wife have child with her, which is not the situation here, hence, the same are not helping to the applicant. One more decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Nilakshi majumdar (Smt.) Vs. Gautam Ram Prasad Majumdar reported in (2005) 12 SCC 175 is cited on behalf of the applicant but in view of anindita Das"s case (Supra) the same is not helping to the applicant. ( 9. One more decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Nilakshi majumdar (Smt.) Vs. Gautam Ram Prasad Majumdar reported in (2005) 12 SCC 175 is cited on behalf of the applicant but in view of anindita Das"s case (Supra) the same is not helping to the applicant. ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion although this petition is being dismissed but to protect the interest of the applicant the following directions are ordered: a. The respondent shall pay the sum in advance to the petitioner for a 2nd Class AC train ticket for herself and a companion for to and fro journey between Indore to Bhopal and the applicant is directed to submit the concerning tickets of such Journey on every next hearing of the case. If the journey is not performed, by train then the applicant shall be entitled for actual expenses of the journey on submitting the tickets or bills in this regard. In any case, it will not be more then the sum of 2nd Class AC ticket. b. Besides the aforesaid travelling expenses respondent shall also pay Rs. 1,500/on every hearing for the expenses of staying at Bhopal as she has to come day before of hearing and may go back on the next day of it. c. If in compliance of this order the directed expenses are not given to the respondent even for single hearing then applicant shall be at liberty to file fresh petition to transfer the aforesaid case from Bhopal to Indore. d. The aforesaid payment is to be made besides the payment directed or may be directed under Section 24 of the Act and amount paid in respect of such alimony shall not be adjusted in the aforesaid sum in any manner. e. The applicant shall be at liberty to move the application for exemption on a date when her presence is not required in the bhopal Court but it is clarified that respondent shall have no right to curtail her right if she desires and come on every date to defend the case. ( 10. ) THERE shall be no order as to costs.