M.M. Kumar, C.J. The prayer made in this transfer petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled as Vimal Jyoti Sharma v. Roomi Sharma pending before the learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Kathua. According to the averments made in the petition, the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Kathua in 2004 and the parties have one girl child from the wedlock who is 7 years old. The petitioner has alleged cruelty which has forced her to leave the matrimonial home and she is putting up with her parents at Ward No. 1 Kathua. It has been emphasized that the Court at Jammu has no jurisdiction because the place does not fall within the jurisdiction of that Court where the marriage was solemnized nor it is a place within whose jurisdiction the parties have last resided together. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance has been filed by the petitioner in the Court at Kathua. He has also pleaded that convenience of wife has to be taken into account in such like matters. 2. Despite notice respondent has not chosen to appear and I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. The parties have solemnized their marriage at Kathua. Both are residents of Kathua. They have last resided at Kathua. There is litigation pending between them at Kathua. The petitioner has also stated that as she is an illiterate lady with no means and, therefore, she cannot prosecute the litigation at Jammu which is 80 kilometer away from her residence. Petitioner has also stated that respondent has filed the petition at Jammu only to harass her. Once the husband is prosecuting the litigation at Kathua in two cases between the same parties, he could easily prosecute his 3rd case which he has intentionally filed at Jammu only to harass his wife. In litigation between the husband and wife, the convenience of the wife is required to be kept in view. Once the husband is prosecuting the litigation at Kathua in two cases between the same parties, he could easily prosecute his 3rd case which he has intentionally filed at Jammu only to harass his wife. In litigation between the husband and wife, the convenience of the wife is required to be kept in view. For this proposition support can be drawn from the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Uma Parekh v. Ajeet Pareek (2005) 9 SCC 600 and Laxmi Devi v. Rajesh Kumar Sanadhya (2002) 10 SCC 693 . In the instant case it is evident that the petitioner with her girl child has been residing with her father at Ward No. 1 Kathua which falls in District Kathua. The Court at Jammu has no jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be accepted. As a sequel to the above discussion, this petition succeeds. The proceedings in case titled Vimal Jyoti Sharma v. Roomi Sharma, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu are ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned Principal District Judge Kathua. Learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu shall transmit the record of the file to the learned District Judge Kathua after retaining a photocopy of the file for record. Parties are directed to appear before Principal District Judge, Kathua on 10.12.2013. _______________