M.M. Kumar, C.J. The instant petition by Nahida Begum-wife of respondent has been preferred for transfer of proceedings initiated by her husband in the Court of District Judge Bhaderwah to the Court of Additional District Judge Doda. The parties entered into wedlock on 26.11.2007 as per Muslim rites. A male child was born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that the petitioner was thrown out by her husband from the matrimonial home in October 2008 and she lived in a rented accommodation at Doda City. For the last five months she has been living in Jammu and is living in a rented accommodation. There are allegations made by the petitioner-wife of atrocities committed at her by her in-laws. She bears expenses for her own maintenance and that of the minor child. 2. In order to seek maintenance she filed a petition before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Doda who allowed interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- for the minor child. The petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2011 with a direction to respondent-husband to pay to the minor child a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month (Annexure-A). However, the amount has not been paid. 3. The petitioner has been working as Junior Staff Nurse and is posted at SMGS Hospital Jammu where she joined on 01.05.2012. She is discharging her duties at Jammu and has taken rented accommodation at Prem Nagar, Jammu. The minor child is being looked after during her duty hours by his maternal grand mother (Naani). Respondent-husband has later filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1977 (for brevity the Act) with prayer for obtaining the custody of the minor child along with an application for interim order to allow him to meet the minor child twice a week (Annexure-B). It is claimed that under Section 9 of the Act it is the District Court under whose jurisdiction the minor ordinarily resides that would be competent to entertain application under Section 25 of the Act. 4. In the instant case, the respondent-husband has deliberately shown the residence of the petitioner-wife at Bhaderwah. Therefore, learned Principal District Judge Bhaderwah, without noticing the aforesaid fact has taken cognizance. 4. In the instant case, the respondent-husband has deliberately shown the residence of the petitioner-wife at Bhaderwah. Therefore, learned Principal District Judge Bhaderwah, without noticing the aforesaid fact has taken cognizance. It is alleged that application has been filed under Section 12 of the Act to avoid payment of maintenance allowance and to harass the petitioner-wife by instituting frivolous litigation to force her to submit to the dictates of the goonda elements for securing the divorce forcibly. There are further allegations that Bhaderwah is the local area where the respondent-husband wields huge influence and it is not possible for the petitioner to defend proceedings at Bhaderwah. 5. Notice of the petition was issued. On 26.04.2013 respondent was represented by counsel and four weeks time was granted to him to file objections. The office report dated 24.05.2013 showed that objections were not filed. On 08.11.2013 respondent was again absent and there was no authorized representative appearing on his behalf. Accordingly, one last opportunity was granted to file objections failing which the petition was to be heard on merits. On 14.11.2013 the Court took lenient view and still adjourned the matter. It is in these circumstances the court has proceeded to hear the petition in the absence of respondent. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes apparent that the Court at Jammu would have jurisdiction and not the Court at Bhaderwah because the minor is residing at Jammu and application under Section 9 of the Act has to be filed before the Court under whose jurisdiction the minor ordinarily resides. It is otherwise in a matter like the one in hand that the convenience of wife is taken into consideration and preference has to be given to her convenience over the convenience of her husband. In that regard reliance may be placed on Uma Parekh v. Ajeet Pareek (2005) 9 SCC 600 and Laxmi Devi v. Rajesh Kumar Sanadhya (2002) 10 SCC 693 . 7. For the reasons stated above, the case titled Shabir Ahmed vs. Nahida Begum is ordered to be withdrawn from the Court of District Judge Bhaderwah and the same is entrusted to the Court of Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu. 7. For the reasons stated above, the case titled Shabir Ahmed vs. Nahida Begum is ordered to be withdrawn from the Court of District Judge Bhaderwah and the same is entrusted to the Court of Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu. As the records have already been received, the Registry shall transmit the record to the Court of Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu and sent an intimation to the learned District Judge Bhaderwah with a copy of this order and a Xerox copy of the record as well. Petitioner through her counsel is directed to appear before Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu on 30.12.2013. _________________