JUDGMENT 1. - Both the petitioner and respondent are qualified MBBS doctors; the petitioner-wife Smt. Sudesh Agarwal being employed in PBM Hospital in Gynecology Department and the respondent-husband Dr. Sanjay Gupta employed in Government Hospital at Jodhpur. 2. The marriage in question took place way back in the year 1991 and after begetting two children out of said wedlock, unfortunately the couple fell apart and the petitioner-wife working at Bikaner has filed this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of Case No. 334/2008 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the Family Court at jodhpur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife Mr. Vineet Jain argued that there are number of other proceedings pending at Bikaner instituted by the petitioner-wife and the same are being contested by the respondent-husband at Bikaner Courts regularly. He submitted that since the petitioner-wife is working' lady at Bikaner and has to look after two children, it is not at all practicable and possible for her to attend the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act instituted by the respondent-husband at jodhpur and therefore, the said Case No. 334 of 2008, Dr. Sanjay Gupta v. Dr. (Smt) Sudesh Agarwal pending in the Family Court, Jodhpur deserves to be transferred to Bikaner in the competent Court. He submitted that one of the cases pending trial are under Section 498-A I.P.C. before the learned judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner, the other one is under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance pending before the learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate No. 4, Bikaner and other one is revision petitions filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent-husband against the orders passed by the learned ACJM under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bikaner. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that earlier also, the respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights which was also transferred to the Court of learned Distt. Judge, Bikaner in the year 2002. Even the application filed by the respondent-husband under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act was returned for proper presentation by the jodhpur Court to be filed at Bikaner as the children were living with the petitioner-wife at Bikaner. Judge, Bikaner in the year 2002. Even the application filed by the respondent-husband under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act was returned for proper presentation by the jodhpur Court to be filed at Bikaner as the children were living with the petitioner-wife at Bikaner. He, therefore, submitted that since all the litigation's between the parties arising out of said matrimonial disputes are pending in Bikaner and are being pursued by the parties at Bikaner the present case of which transfer is sought also deserves to be transferred to Bikaner. 4. These contentions are opposed by Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband who submitted that mere convenience of the petitioner-wife and her employment at Bikaner is not sufficient ground to transfer the proceedings to Bikaner. He submitted that the provisions of transfer under Section 24 of the C.P.C. have been misused and he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observing that women are taking advantage of leniency shown by the Apex Court and on an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each Court on each admission day, therefore, no such leniency can be permitted and despite several decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking transfer of proceedings, the Court rejected the transfer application. 5. It may be stated here that this Court while dealing with the present transfer petition, despite the petitioner and the respondent being in their advance age and having lived separately for last 7 to 8 years, made best possible efforts for reconciliation between the parties for their benefit and benefit of two children born out of this wedlock and in this connection, on 2 to 3 occasions, reconciliation talks were held with the parties and the counsels in the Chamber and in the Court. The two children are daughter Shivangi aged about 17 years and son Rishab aged about 14 years, who are living with mother, the petitioner-wife at Bikaner. However, ultimately on account of reticent attitude of both the parties, more so of the respondent-husband, the Court had to bring down the curtain on said reconciliation talks and transfer petition was heard on merits. 6. However, ultimately on account of reticent attitude of both the parties, more so of the respondent-husband, the Court had to bring down the curtain on said reconciliation talks and transfer petition was heard on merits. 6. Having heard the learned counsels and on the merits of the transfer petition, this Court is of the view that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, this transfer petition deserves to be allowed and the Original Case No. 334 of 2008, Dr. Sanjay Gupta v. Dr. Sudesh Agarwal pending in the Family Court, jodhpur deserves to be transferred to the Court of learned Distt. Judge, Bikaner as prayed for by the petitioner-wife. The reason are not far to seek. Since at least 3 to 4 proceedings at different forums are already pending in different Courts at Bikaner and are being contested by the respondent-husband there. Thus, it would only be proper and in the fitness of the thing if the present divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also tried at Bikaner. it is well settled that as far as place of litigation is concerned, such different trails should be held at one place not only to avoid inconsistency but to also facilitate the parties. to the said matrimonial dispute when the respondent-husband being qualified doctor is already attending other proceedings at Bikaner Court, besides reason of convenience of the petitioner-wife, who is also a working lady and qualified doctor and pendency of various cases at Bikaner also is sufficient and reasonable ground to transfer the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act to Bikaner. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-husband which was based on peculiar facts obtaining before the Apex Court, whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court chose to reject the transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as no such fact of pendency of various cases at the place where transfer is sought appears from that judgment. 7. Accordingly this transfer petition is allowed and it is directed that the proceedings and record of Case No. 334 of 2008, Dr. Sanjay Gupta v. Smt. Sudesh Agarwal pending in the Family Court, jodhpur shall be transferred to the Distt. Judge, Bikaner, who will deal with the said petition on merits in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly this transfer petition is allowed and it is directed that the proceedings and record of Case No. 334 of 2008, Dr. Sanjay Gupta v. Smt. Sudesh Agarwal pending in the Family Court, jodhpur shall be transferred to the Distt. Judge, Bikaner, who will deal with the said petition on merits in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******