JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. 1. Invoking power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Petitioner, who is the wife of the Respondent herein has sought for a transfer of Title Suit (Divorce) 35 of 2008 titled Dr. Sumit Kumar Das v. Smt. Pinky Paul Das pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Nagaon to the learned Court of District Judge at Golaghat. 2. Before taking into account the pleadings set forth by the parties in the instant case, the Court has taken a note of the case reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 (Anindita Das v. Srijit Das) wherein the Apex Court has given a caution in regard to leniency shown to ladies in earlier cases whereof the said leniency has been misused by women. Keeping in mind the said caution the Court proceeded to dispose of the case taking into account the balance of convenience or inconvenience of the parties or witnesses and/or convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the divorce proceedings and/or interest of justice sought for transfer, etc. 3. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell is summarized as follows: The husband who is the Respondent herein has initiated a proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act) only on the ground of paranoid schizophrenia, the disease suffered by his wife which is an incurable disease as pleaded in the divorce proceedings. In the divorce proceeding, the Respondent husband has admitted that the marriage was solemnized at Golaghat on 12.5.2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in a Bibah Bhawan at Golaghat and the marriage was duly consummated. The divorce proceeding had to be initiated and filed on 13.6.2008 in the place where both of them last resided together, just on completion of 1 (one) year of marriage as provided under Section 19 of the Act considering the gravity of the disease suffered by the Petitioner wife. Since the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned District Court at Nagaon, the said Title Suit (Divorce) was filed at Nagaon. 4. Since the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned District Court at Nagaon, the said Title Suit (Divorce) was filed at Nagaon. 4. The Court at Nagaon took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the wife who had entered appearance and sought time to file the written statement but approached this Court invoking power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the case as indicated above. 5. Referring to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, more particularly Section 19(iii-a) of the Act, Shri Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would urge that the Parliament in its wisdom has amended the provision by Act 50 of 2003 whereby the insertion has been made by giving the right to the wife to present the petition where she resides which implied that the presentation of the petition ought to have been made within the local jurisdiction of the district Court at Golaghat since the other two provisions, viz., Section 19(i) and 19(ii) of the Act vests in her favour. Shri Banerjee has further urged that since just on completion of 1 (one) year of the solemnization of marriage, the divorce proceeding has been presented at the local jurisdiction of District Court at Nagaon, it cannot be construed that the parties to the marriage last resided together at Nagaon as seen from the dates of living within the district of Nagaon which can be termed as transitory. 6. Shri Banerjee would urge in his second limb of argument that the Petitioner resides at Singhpura which is 25 kms away from Golaghat. To reach Golaghat there are two buses plying daily from Mokorn via Singhpura at 8:30 and 9 a.m. and the buses would reach Golaghat at 10:15 and 11 a.m. and therefore to reach Nagaon 5 (five) hours journey is the minimum requirement and she cannot reach Nagaon before 3 p.m. on the date when her presence is required in the Court. On the other hand, the Respondent who is a doctor by profession having sufficient means including the vehicle of his own can reach Golaghat before 10 a.m. and therefore inconvenience if the case is not transferred would be more to the Petitioner than the Respondent. 7. On the other hand, the Respondent who is a doctor by profession having sufficient means including the vehicle of his own can reach Golaghat before 10 a.m. and therefore inconvenience if the case is not transferred would be more to the Petitioner than the Respondent. 7. The third limb of argument advanced by Shri Banerjee relates to the disease suffering from "Paranoid Schizophrenia" by the Petitioner as alleged by the Respondent which is an incurable disease and a companion is required all the way from Singhpura to Nagaon and having no sufficient means being a housewife, the case is required to be transferred to Golaghat in the interest of justice. 8. In support of his contentions, Shri Banerjee referred the following decisions viz; (i) AIR 2000 SC 3351 Shyamali Ghosh v. Sumit Kumar Ghosh. (ii) AIR 2000 SC 3512 Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel. (iii) AIR 2000 SC 3572 Raj Laxmi Sharma v. Dilip Kumar Sharma. (iv) AIR 2000 SC 3403 Ravinder Kaur v. Hitinder Singh. (v) AIR 2000 SC 3405 Renu Gautam v. Vinod Gautam. (vi) (2005) 11 SCC 556 Paushi (Smt.) v. Akash Katoch. (vii) (2005) 12 SCC 237 Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi. (viii) (2005) 13 SCC 158 Madhu Saxena v. Pankaj Saxena. (ix) (2005) 13 SCC 371 (Manas Bhat-tacherjee v. Vinay Cements Ltd.) 9. Countering the argument advanced by Shri Banerjee, Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner, Shri D. Saikia, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent husband would urge that the Petitioner and the husband have their marital home at Hojai and Lumding which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court at Nagaon and both of them had last resided together in the places mentioned hereinabove and therefore the divorce petition has been filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court of Nagaon and the Respondent is now serving as a Gynecologist at Haji Abdul Masjid Memorial Hospital ('HAMM' for short) at Hojai which would cause inconvenience to him if the case is transferred to Golaghat. 10. 10. The second limb of argument of Shri Saikia relates to the danger of life of the Respondent in the event of transfer of the case to Golaghat since the Petitioner and some of her goons had already threatened him at Hojai and accordingly he had to lodge a First Information Report on 21.7.2008 to the Officer-in-charge at Hojai being Hojai P.S. Case No. 161/08 under Section143/448/323/427/380, IPC and therefore would urge that no interference relating to transfer of case is required in the interest of justice. 11. Shri D. Saikia would further urge that the Respondent has provided all medical facilities and treatment to the Petitioner which had no positive result and thus he has been left with no other alternative but to file the divorce proceeding for annulment of his marriage with the Petitioner. The counsel would further urge that the Respondent is willing to bear the expenses of both ways of journey alongwith her companion and even halt at Nagaon for the night and submit that the case may not be transferred in the interest of justice. 12. In support of his contentions Shri Saikia, counsel for the Respondent, has referred the following decisions viz; (i) (2000) 3 SCC 744 Archana Singh v. Alok Pratap Singh. (ii) (2004) 13 SCC 405 Kanagalakshmi v. A. Venkatesan. (iii) (2004) 13 SCC 411 Teena Chhabra v. Manish Chhabra. (iv) (2004) 13 SCC 634 Kamudi Aurora v. Surinder Pal Singh Aurora. (v) (2005) 12 SCC 216 Kakali Pal v. Balai Chandra Pal. (vi) (2005) 12 SCC 235 Priyanka Batra v. Manish Batra. (vii) (2005) 12 SCC 301 M. Sivagami v. R. Raja. 13. In reply to the arguments advanced by Shri D. Saikia, counsel for the Respondent, Shri Banerjee, Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the pleadings made in the divorce petition, averments made in the transfer petition and the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the reply filed by the Petitioner and would urge that there is no denial that to attend the Court at Nagaon from Singhpura the Petitioner alone cannot go to Nagaon and reach the Court in time and the averments made to the effect that anybody can reach Nagaon from Singhpura, Golaghat within three hours only is rather impossible considering the distance of journey. Shri Banerjee has further drawn the attention of the Court of the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition and the reply relating to threat of life of the Respondent and would urge that since there was no reconciliation between the spouses, the Petitioner along with members of Pragati Mahila Samity, Furkating and three male students went to Hojai for reconciliation but the Respondent refused to meet them and in consequence thereof they had left Hojai and till date no investigation has been made to the aforesaid Hojai P.S. Case No. 161/08. 14. Shri Banerjee would further urge that the Petitioner wants to live with dignity as a wife of a doctor husband and therefore the allegations so made is false and incorrect. Moreover, the disease the Petitioner is suffering requires transfer of the case from Nagaon to Golaghat in the interest of justice. 15. Considered the submissions made by the rival parties. The averments made in the transfer petition, divorce petition, the affidavit-in-opposition and the reply made thereto have been perused. There are no averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition by the husband/Respondent relating to bearing of expenses of the Petitioner along with one companion for journey though oral submissions have been, made to that effect and the allegations to threat to life has been controverted by the Petitioner. 16. The authorities cited by the parties are all based on the facts of their respective cases. The ratio of the cases relied upon by the Respondent is that if the husband agrees to bear the travelling and other expenses to the wife for attending Court, the divorce case need not be transferred. This principle cannot be applied in case of the Respondent husband due to the fact that no such offer in writing was made to the Petitioner wife and there was no acceptance on the part of the Petitioner wife, who, by such acceptance gave consent for not transferring the divorce proceeding from one Court to another. In the instant case, no such undertaking has been placed for consideration for taking action in this regard. In the instant case, no such undertaking has been placed for consideration for taking action in this regard. Admittedly if the Court proceeds to go by averments made in the divorce petition it would reveal that the same has been filed just on completion of 1 (one) year of the marriage on the ground that the Petitioner wife is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which is incurable disease and the Petitioner requires constant care and medical facilities which the Respondent husband knows being a doctor. On the other hand, allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition relating to threat to life has been controverted by the Petitioner in her reply. In a case of this nature, place of trial and/or transfer of case often causes inconveniences to some extent to one of the parties. There being no averments in the affidavit-in-opposition that the Respondent would bear the expenses of the journey, only oral submissions made cannot be accepted in the attendant circumstances as the same cannot be considered as an undertaking given to this Court. 17. 'Therefore, the Court has to look at the case relating to the balance of convenience or inconvenience of the respective parties or witnesses and convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the proceeding and interest of justice, etc. The Petitioner is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia as the allegation has been brought by none but the doctor husband and therefore the balance of convenience would lay very much against the Petitioner if the case is not transferred and simultaneously since the Respondent has apprehension in his mind in regard to threat of life in case the trial of divorce proceeding is transferred to the District Court at Golaghat, this Court deems it fit to transfer the case to a neutral place where the parties to the adjudication may not have any grievance. 18. As to the location of the neutral venue, the Court observes that Jorhat will be the most suitable of the choices available for such neutral venue. It is adjacent to Golaghat where the Petitioner resides and therefore the Petitioner will have very little difficulty to go to Jorhat to attend the divorce proceedings and come back on the same day. Thus, it obviates the need for a night halt for the Petitioner on account of attending the divorce proceedings. It is adjacent to Golaghat where the Petitioner resides and therefore the Petitioner will have very little difficulty to go to Jorhat to attend the divorce proceedings and come back on the same day. Thus, it obviates the need for a night halt for the Petitioner on account of attending the divorce proceedings. On the other hand, as far as the Respondent is concerned, although he will have to travel from Nagaon to Jorhat, still it should not be too difficult for him to do so, especially since he already possesses a car. In fact, the Respondent’s main contention is with respect to the threat on his life in Golaghat which would no longer be present if the proceedings continue at Jorhat. As to his contention that going to Golaghat or some other place will be inconvenient for him as he is a doctor working in HAMM Hospital at Nagaon, the Court has already noted that it would be far more inconvenient for the Petitioner, suffering as she is from paranoid schizophrenia, to go to Nagaon rather then for the Respondent to go to Golaghat or even a bit further to Jorhat. 19. Accordingly, the divorce proceeding being Title Suit (Divorce) No. 35 of 2008 tiled Dr. Sumit Kumar Das v. Smt. Pinky Paul Das pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Nagaon is transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. The learned District Judge, Jorhat will take up the case and hear the parties and would try to dispose of the case as early as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the case record from the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaon. Since the parties are represented by their respective learned Counsels, they are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Jorhat on 20.3.2009 to obtain further orders. 20. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to both the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaon and the learned District Judge, Jorhat forthwith. 21. In the result, the petition is allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove. The parties are left to bear their own respective costs. Petition allowed