JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Smt. Jai Shree alias Suman alias Guddi, has moved this transfer petition inter-alia on the ground that while a criminal case filed by her is pending trial before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, her husband, the respondent Pankaj Kumar, has filed a case for the custody of their child under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 ('the Act', for short), before the Family Court in Bhilwara. She has prayed that the case pending before the Family Court at Bhilwara, for the custody of child, should be transferred to the District Court at Ajmer. 2. Mr. Sushil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner happens to be 23 years old young lady; she lives with her parents as she was thrown out of her matrimonial house after being physically assaulted by the respondent; she has filed a case under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC which is pending before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer. Meanwhile, the respondent-husband has filed a case under the Act before the Family Court, Bhilwara. The petitioner claims that she has been threatened by the respondent and his family members who have told her that if she were to come to Bhilwara they would "teach a lesson to her". Moreover, the learned counsel has contended that under Section 9 of the Act, an application for seeking custody of a child has to be filed in the District Court having jurisdiction where the minor ordinarily resides. Since, the child is residing at Ajmer, the application should have been filed before the District Court at Ajmer. For, the Family Court at Bhilwara does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application. Therefore, she has prayed that the case pending in Bhilwara should be transferred to the District Court at Ajmer. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anuj Sahlot, the learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently contended that the petitioner has not given any details as to who had threatened her, and when she was threatened by the respondent and his family members. Relying on the case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 , the learned counsel has contended that the court should not be lenient in a transfer petition and should not show undue sympathy for the women. Relying on the case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 , the learned counsel has contended that the court should not be lenient in a transfer petition and should not show undue sympathy for the women. For, such leniency is being misused by the women. The Court is required to look into the facts and circumstances of each case. In case vague allegations were made, the Court should reject the transfer petition. Moreover, the stand taken by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the Family Court in Bhilwara can be taken by her before the said court at Bhilwara. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The petitioner has not given any details whatsoever as to when she was threatened by the respondent and by whom she was threatened. Moreover, she has not given any details of any legal proceedings initiated by her against the respondent or his family members who have threatened her. It seems, she has neither filed any FIR against the persons who have threatened her, nor has moved any application before the Executive Magistrate. Hence, the allegations made by her are vague in nature. 6. Undoubtedly, the ground of jurisdiction can be taken by the petitioner before the Family court at Bhilwara. Since she has not taken the said ground, obviously the transfer petition is pre-mature. 7. Therefore, this court does not find any merit in this petition; the same is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******