JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J. (Oral) - Petitioner wife has filed the present transfer application under Section 24 CPC for the transfer of petition filed by respondent husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”), titled Shashi Bhushan Garg Vs. Anju Garg from the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Mansa. 2. It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 9.5.1997 at Mansa and out of the said wedlock, two daughters were born on 1.11.1999 and 10.5.2005 respectively. Due to matrimonial dispute, the petitioner-wife was constrained to live separately since April 2008 whereas the respondent-husband along with their two daughters started living with her parents-in-law at Chandigarh. The wife is stated to be residing with her mother at Mansa (Punjab) where she has filed three proceedings namely (i) FIR under Sections 406/498-A IPC (ii) petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and (iii) petition under Section 12 of the Domestic and Violence Act, which are pending in the Courts at Mansa. 3. The respondent husband in April 2008 itself filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh wherein the pleadings stand completed. 4. Keeping in view the interest of the parties, more so of the daughters, this Court on 17.12.2012 while referring the parties for mediation passed the following order: “The respective parties were present with the children. I spoke to the elder girl amongst the children Shohrat aged 13 years, who seems well fed and cheerful. She is happy in the company of her father. The children looked emotionally deprived of the mother’s company as well but I find it is not possible to secure an immediate consent either from the father of the children or the children themselves to express the readiness of the children to obtain access to the mother periodically. I have sought the assistance of Ms. Punita Sethi, Panel counsel, High Court Mediation Center, and the counsel for the parties to attempt one more time for mediation at least as regards the custody of the children or the extent of visitation rights that could be worked out during the pendency of the litigation between the parties. Adjourned to 21.2.2013.” 5. Punita Sethi, Panel counsel, High Court Mediation Center, and the counsel for the parties to attempt one more time for mediation at least as regards the custody of the children or the extent of visitation rights that could be worked out during the pendency of the litigation between the parties. Adjourned to 21.2.2013.” 5. As per the report of the Mediator, the parties could not reach at any amicable settlement and thus, the file was referred back to the Court for decision. 6. It is averred that the petitioner wife is a house wife, has no source of income and it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent husband at Chandigarh which is about 200 kms away from Mansa. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 8. Although the petitioner has made prayer for transfer on the basis of inconvenience as also the aforesaid three cases pending at Mansa, however, keeping in view the nature of allegations made by the husband in his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, this Court feels that it would not be appropriate to order the transfer keeping in view the convenience of the witnesses and nature of evidence to be adduced by the husband at Chandigarh. That apart, it shall also help the wife to meet her teenage daughters residing with the husband at Chandigarh to which the respondent-husband, as per visitation rights as already granted, has no objection. However, the petitioner-wife would be at liberty to seek travelling expenses in accordance with law by filing an application before the learned trial Court. 9. In view of the above, no case for transfer is made out. 10. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————