JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. - In this application u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "C.P.C.") the petitioner-wife has sought for transfer of MAT Case No. 25 of 2012 from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, where she now stays with her brother and studies the course of PGDCA and WEB DESIGNING in Centre for Computer Education, Koel Nagar, Rourkela. The transfer petition avers that the petitioner being dependent on her brother, it is difficult on her part to take to-and-fro journey to Keonjhar on each date of posting of the case; the family of opposite party - husband being influential in the locality, there is likelihood of threatening to the petitioner in the event of her attending the Court at Keonjhar. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party - husband, in course of hearing, submits that the petitioner is a resident of village Badahal in the district of Keonjhar and she is presently residing at Malapada in the district of Jajpur. But, with a view to harass the opposite party - husband, this transfer petition has been filed to transfer the case to Rourkela. 3. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner - wife to show that the petitioner is continuing her studies for the course of PGDCA and WEB DESIGNING in an Institute at Koel Nagar, Rourkela. Such a fact goes a long way to show that the averment of the petitioner is correct regarding her stay at Rourkela with her brother. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mona Aresh Goel Vs. Aresh Satya Goel, Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, and Pratibha Khemka Vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka, held that it is the convenience of the wife in a matrimonial dispute, which should be looked into while considering the question of transfer of a case. This Court, in the case of Deepika Maharana Vs. Prasanna Maharana ' Prasanna Kumar Maharana, and Jhunu Biswal Vs. Ratan Biswal have observed that in a husband's lis against the wife, it is the wife's convenience which has to be looked at. 4. This Court, in the case of Deepika Maharana Vs. Prasanna Maharana ' Prasanna Kumar Maharana, and Jhunu Biswal Vs. Ratan Biswal have observed that in a husband's lis against the wife, it is the wife's convenience which has to be looked at. 4. In the present case, it will be inconvenient for the petitioner - wife to come to Keonjhar in view of the distance of Keonjhar from Rourkela, where no relations of the petitioner - wife is there for her to stay with. Further the petitioner - wife is totally dependent on her brother and she is staying with her brother at Rourkela. She is prosecuting her studies for the course of PGDCA and WEB DESIGNING in an Institute at Koel Nagar, Rourkela, and it would affect her studies if she is required to come to the Court at Keonjhar to attend the case to defend herself. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the discussions supra, MAT Case No. 25 of 2012 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar stands transferred from the said Court to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela. The record of the case be transmitted to the Family Court, Rourkela forthwith. Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The T.R.P. (C) is disposed of accordingly. Final Result : Disposed Off