JUDGMENT 1. - The applicant, Smt. Meena Verma, has filed this transfer application under Section 24 CPC for transferring to the Court of the District Judge Baran the civil misc. application No. 126/2009, filed by the non-applicant-husband, Hemraj Verma (hereinafter 'the non-applicant'), under Sees. 9, 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1890') before the District Judge, Jhalawar for the custody of two minor children. The facts of the case are that the applicant and the non-applicant were married at Baran on 11.11.1997 and have two children from their marriage. On account of the husband's cruelty as alleged, the applicant left her matrimonial home with her two children on 21.05.2009 and is presently residing at Baran. She has filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the non-applicant before the District Court, Baran. The applicant has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2005') on 21.08.2009 against the non-applicant also at Baran. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran vide his order 21.08.2009 directed the non-applicant-husband to pay Rs. 7,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the applicant. The non-applicant has also filed his reply to the application filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 on 16.03.2010. 2. That meanwhile on 11.12.2009 the non-applicant-husband filed an application under Sees. 9, 25 of the Act of 1890 for custody of the two minor children from his marriage with the applicant before the District Judge, Jhalawar. Hence this transfer application. 3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it would be extremely inconvenient and cause great hardship in the event the applicant were required to travel to Baran to Jhalawar to contest the application under Sees. 9, 25 of the Act of 1890 filed by the non-applicant. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajni Kumar v. Raghvinder Sahay @ Lal Babu, 2009 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 530 and Samita Bhattacharjee v. Kulashekhar Bhattacharjee, 2008 (1) WLC (SC) 637, it has been submitted that it is the consistent practice of the Courts that convenience of the wife is to be taken into consideration for transferring of matrimonial dispute to the places of their residence unless special/extraordinary circumstances militate against such a transfer. It has been further submitted that in any event two other cases between the parties are pending at Baran and the non-applicant has also filed his appearance at Baran Court. 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the non-applicant-husband in spite of service. 5. I have heard the counsel for the applicant. 6. In view of the enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the overall facts of the case, I would allow this transfer application and direct that the application under Sees. 9, 25 of the Act of 1890 filed by the non-applicant before the District Judge, Jhalawar be transferred to the District Judge, Baran. The transfer petition stands accordingly allowed.Application Allowed. *******