Judgment : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This Misc. Civil Application is filed praying for the relief that the H.M.P. No.158/2012 filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim may be transferred in the Court of the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded for final adjudication. 3. It is the case of the applicant that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage took place on 23.2.2008 at Hadgaon, District Nanded. It is the contention of the applicant that, in the marriage, the mother of the applicant gave Rs. 3,51,000/- cash amount and Rs.2,50,000/- towards marriage expenses. It is further the case of the applicant that the respondent is the adopted son of the deceased Rustumrao, who died leaving behind two wives namely Lilabai and Ranjanabai. The respondent is the real son of Nandabai w/o Vinayak Nayak, Resident of Rithad and Rustumrao is the real uncle, who adopted him as his son. 4. It is further the case of the applicant that, after the marriage, the applicant had been to the house of respondent for co-habitation at Rithad, where the respondent is living with his mother Lilabai and Ranjanabai. After her marriage, she stayed with the respondent till the year 2010. Thereafter they shifted to Risod due to the service of the respondent as Extension Officer, I.C.D.S. at Risod under Zilla Parishad, Washim. 5. It is further case of the applicant that, the applicant was treated well till September 2009. However, thereafter, the family members of the respondent started giving ill-treatment to her. The respondent also demanded some amount and same was paid to the respondent. 6. It is further case of the applicant that, in the year 2011, the applicant was pregnant, however, due to improper growth of the foetus, the applicant had gone for abortion in the month of August 2011 at Ankur Hospital, Nanded. It is further case of the applicant that, the respondent continued giving ill-treatment to the applicant even after abortion, instead of giving mental support to her. The applicant contents that she is an educated lady, she has completed her education up to D. Pharmacy and B.Sc. Second Year. After her marriage, her studies have been discontinued. It is the case of the applicant that on 1.9.2012, the respondent left the applicant at the house of her mother at Hadgaon. The applicant contents that she is an educated lady, she has completed her education up to D. Pharmacy and B.Sc. Second Year. After her marriage, her studies have been discontinued. It is the case of the applicant that on 1.9.2012, the respondent left the applicant at the house of her mother at Hadgaon. It is further the case of the applicant that, thereafter the respondent never turned out. Though the applicant made attempts to contact the respondent, there was no response from the respondent. The applicant received the summons from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim in the month of September 2012. Thereafter she came to know that the respondent/ husband filed Hindu Marriage Petition for divorce under Section 13(1) (1a), (1b) & (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further the case of the applicant that, thereafter again the applicant tried to contact the respondent. However, there was no response from the respondent. The applicant does not want that the marriage is dissolved. Therefore, she decided to file separate petition for restitution of conjugal rights and accordingly H.M.P. No.193/2012 was instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded. 7. This application is filed for transfer of H.M.P. No.158/2012 filed by the respondent before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim to the Court of 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Nanded. 8. The transfer is sought on following grounds: The applicant being wife of the respondent, the proceedings for divorce filed by the respondent be transferred at the place where the applicant filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights since same is convenient for the applicant/ wife. The second ground is that, the applicant is not having father, her father died long back and she is residing with her mother at Hadgaon. Both the applicant and her mother have no independent source of income. It is further ground of the applicant that, in case the applicant travels to Washim for attending the proceedings, there is a possibility that the respondent may torture the applicant and pressurize her to give consent for divorce. The distance from Hadgaon to Washim is more than 400 Kms. The applicant is unable to travel to Washim to attend the dates of hearing in the petition filed by the respondent. The distance from Hadgaon to Washim is more than 400 Kms. The applicant is unable to travel to Washim to attend the dates of hearing in the petition filed by the respondent. The respondent is a Government employee working as Extension Officer at Risod under Zilla Parishad, Washim and his financial position is sound and he can easily spend money for travelling to attend the Court at Nanded. In a proceeding instituted by the applicant before the Court at Nanded, the respondent will have to attend the said proceedings and, therefore, it will be convenient even for the respondent if both the proceedings are heard at Nanded. The concern of security is also raised by the applicant if she has to travel from Hadgaon to Washim to attend the proceedings instituted by the respondent. It is stated that, both the proceedings are at initial stage and both the proceedings can be tried together at Nanded, which will be convenient to the applicant and also to the respondent. The other grounds are also taken in the application. However, the main ground agitated appears to be inconvenience to the applicant to travel from Hadgaon to Washim and also not having independent source of income to bear the expenses and for security reasons, the applicant cannot travel from Hadgaon to Washim, which is at a distance of 400 Kms. In ground No.XI of the application, the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in [2001 (10) SCC 41 (Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & anr.) Supreme Court Cases 10 and 2000 (9) SCC 255 (Mona Aresh Goel Vs. Aresh Satya Goel). Ultimately it is prayed that the application may be allowed and the proceedings instituted by the respondent/ husband may be transferred from Washim to Nanded before the competent Court. 9. The respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply. In addition to contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, the proceedings instituted by the respondent/ husband are prior in time. The applicant has instituted the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights at Nanded so as to enable her to take defence for the transfer of proceedings from Washim to Nanded. In addition to contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, the proceedings instituted by the respondent/ husband are prior in time. The applicant has instituted the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights at Nanded so as to enable her to take defence for the transfer of proceedings from Washim to Nanded. It is submitted that, the applicant has already caused appearance before the Court at Washim and filed application for interim maintenance on principal ground that she needs interim maintenance so as to meet out the expenses for travelling from Hadgaon to Washim to attend the proceedings before the Court at Washim. It is submitted that, the respondent is ready to bear the travelling expenses not only for the applicant but for some other family member from her maternal side, who will accompany the applicant to travel from Hadgaon to Washim. It is submitted that, though the allegations are made that there is a threat or there may be torture by the respondent to the applicant if she goes to Washim to attend the proceedings, no any complaint or application is filed by the applicant making the grievance either before the police station or before the competent Court. It is submitted that, the respondent is holding responsible post of Extension Officer and the project of Child Welfare is to be supervised by him on day-to-day basis. It is submitted that, the distance from Hadgaon to Washim is only 112 Kms., which would take only 2 hours 14 minutes for travelling from Hadgaon to Washim. It is submitted that, even otherwise, the applicant is residing at Hadgaon, which is 61 Kms. away from Nanded. The learned counsel invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of [Parminder Kaur Vs. State of U.P. & anr. (AIR 2007 SC (Supp.) 126], and submitted that the Supreme Court has considered the apprehension of physical harm as a ground for transfer of the proceedings, and held that, such ground for transfer of the case, if not substantiated by the proof, is not required to be considered and accepted. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, the application for transfer is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 10. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, the application for transfer is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 10. I have carefully perused the averments in the application, grounds raised therein and annexures thereto and the reply filed by the respondent and submissions made across bar by the counsel for the respondent. It is true that the respondent has shown readiness to make the payment for travelling from Hadgaon to Washim not only to the applicant but any other member from the family from maternal side of the applicant, however, in a proceeding instituted by the husband, what is required to be looked into is the convenience of the wife, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay [2001 (10) SCC 41]. 11. Though the counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that distance from Hadgaon to Washim is 112 Kms., however, upon careful perusal of the grounds taken in the application, it is stated that the distance is more than 400 Kms. It is not necessary to go into that controversy. The main ground which is pleaded by the applicant is inconvenience, insecurity and her father is no more and she is staying with her mother, and having no source of income for travelling from Hadgaon to Washim. Therefore, considering the contentions raised by the parties, in my opinion, the balance of convenience would certainly lie with the applicant. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumit Singh (supra), it is the convenience of the applicant/ wife which is required to be looked into for the grounds taken in the applicant. It is true that, the respondent is working in the employment of the Zilla Parishad. However, that ground is not weighed with the Court when with specific averments, inconvenience is pleaded by the applicant/ wife. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the Misc. Civil Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Misc. Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and stands disposed of. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim is directed to transfer the proceedings of H.M.P. No. 158/2012 (Madan Nayak Vs. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the Misc. Civil Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Misc. Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and stands disposed of. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim is directed to transfer the proceedings of H.M.P. No. 158/2012 (Madan Nayak Vs. Megha Nayak) to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, where the proceedings filed by the applicant/wife i.e. H.M.P. No.193/2012 is pending, within one week from the date of receipt of this order. Rule made absolute in above terms.