JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the applicant - wife seeking transfer of Civil Misc. Application No.787/2010 filed by the respondent - husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act') from the Family Court No.1, Jaipur to Family Court, Udaipur. 3. It is inter - alia averred in the application that the respondent had filed application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Family Court No.1, Jaipur and an application seeking transfer of the said proceedings was filed before this Court wherein notices were issued, but ultimately the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were withdrawn and therefore, the transfer application was rendered infructuous; the father of the applicant has died in the year 2011 and she has a daughter aged about 5 years and therefore, on every date she is required to attend the hearing at Jaipur along with her mother and a minor child. 4. Further averments have been made indicating nonavailability of the Presiding Officer on certain dates and allegations that the respondent is threatening to kill the applicant and she is facing ill - treatment; application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the Family Court, Udaipur and on account of difficulties being faced by her in attending the proceedings at Jaipur, the proceedings may be transferred. 5. No reply to the said application has been filed by the respondent. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is facing inconvenience / difficulties in attending the hearing at Jaipur and therefore, the matter be transferred from Family Court No.1, Jaipur to Family Court, Udaipur. 7. It is further submitted that the respondent is serving with Railways and therefore, he would have no difficulty in attending the hearing at Udaipur. 8. Reliance was placed on Smt. Samta v. Sanjay Kumar Sharma : 2005 (5) WLC (Raj.) 126 ; Sunita v. Om Prakash : 2004 WLC (Raj.) UC 257 and Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 396 . 9. Per contra, refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it was submitted that the applicant has failed to indicate any germane reason for seeking transfer from Jaipur to Udaipur. 9. Per contra, refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it was submitted that the applicant has failed to indicate any germane reason for seeking transfer from Jaipur to Udaipur. The proceedings are pending since 2010 and the applicant is regularly appearing there and the plea that she is required to remain present at Jaipur on every date personally, is also not correct; no proof of any threatening etc. has been placed on record and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is entitled for transfer of the proceedings. 10. Reliance was placed on Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 130 and Raichal Johan alias Valsamma v. Francis Ninan and Ors., 1996 AIHC 1250 . 11. I have considered the rival submissions. 12. The fact that father of the applicant has died in the year 2011 and she has a minor child aged about 5 years and she is required to attend the hearing at Jaipur alongwith her mother are not disputed / denied. 13. Even otherwise, on account of the fact that the applicant has no one else to support and therefore, while travelling from Udaipur to Jaipur, as she cannot travel by herself and cannot leave the child at Udaipur, therefore, she is required to be accompanied by her mother and the minor child are quite natural. The said fact cannot be said to be not germane for indicating the inconvenience being faced by the applicant. The fact that the application is pending since 2010 and present application is moved in the year 2013 also cannot militate against the applicant as till such time she could manage to attend the hearing, she has attended the hearing and on facing inconvenience, she has approached this Court. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh (supra) has held that it is the wife's convenience, which should be looked in a husband's suit against the wife. 15. Further in the case of Sunita (supra), this Court on account of distance between Bundi to Jaipur ordered for transfer of proceedings from Family Court, Jaipur to Family Court, Bundi and in the case of Smt. Samta (supra) in view of the fact that the applicant therein was required to travel by bus for about 250 kms., the application was transferred. 16. 16. The judgment in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra) cited by learned counsel for the respondent is of little help as the same does not arise out of matrimonial proceedings and the dicta of Kerala High Court in the case of Raichal Johan (supra) that mere convenience of one of the spouse cannot be a ground for transfer of the proceedings is apparently contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitra Singh (supra) and therefore, the same also cannot come to the aid of the respondent. 17. In view of the above, transfer application filed by the applicant is allowed. The proceedings in Civil Misc. Case No.787/2010 Mahipal Singh v. Kamaljeet Kaur pending before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur shall stand transferred to Family Court, Udaipur. The record be transmitted by Family Court No.1, Jaipur to Family Court, Udaipur immediately. 18. The parties shall remain present before the Family Court, Udaipur on 17.2.2014. 19. In view of the fact that the proceedings are pending since 2010, it is expected from the Family Court, Udaipur to deal with the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and decide the same preferrably within a period of nine months. 20. The stay application also stand disposed of. 21. No costs.Transfer Application allowed. *******