JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These petitions under Section 24 CPC have been filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') filed by respondent as well as proceedings initiated by the petitioner herself under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 ('the Act of 1890') from the Court of District Judge, Sirohi to the Court of Additional District Judge, Balotra. 2. It is, inter alia, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, wherein, the proceedings are pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Balotra. As the children of the petitioner were with the respondent, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 10 and 25 of the Act of 1890 before the District Judge, Sirohi for custody of the said children. It is submitted that the distance between Sirohi and Balotra is 160 Kms. and there is nobody available to accompany the petitioner for her journey from Balotra to Sirohi and vice versa and, therefore, the proceedings be transferred from Sirohi to Balotra. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the petitions filed by the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner chose to leave the matrimonial home and, as such, the respondent was forced to lodge FIR, wherein, in her statement, the petitioner has conceded that she does not want to stay at the matrimonial home or with her parents and she wants to stay at her sister's home only. It is further submitted with reference to the statement of the petitioner that in overall fact situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any difficulty in coming from Balotra to Sirohi. It is further submitted that the children of the parties are aged about 4 and 6 years and for the proceedings under the Act of 1890, the children would have to move from one place to another, which would not be convenient for their studies and, therefore, the petitions filed by the petitioner deserve to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 5. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 5. In the overall fact situation of the matter, wherein, the petitioner herself initiated proceedings under the Act of 1890 before the Court of District Judge, Sirohi and the provisions of the Act of 1890 also envisage that the proceedings must be continued by the petitioner at the place of residence of the children and the fact that the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 were initiated by the respondent before the petitioner took steps under Section 498-A IPC, it would not be in the fitness of things that the proceedings, which are pending before the Court of District Judge, Sirohi are transferred to Balotra only on account of the fact that there is a distance of 160 Kms. between Balotra and Sirohi in the fact situation of the case. 6. Judging the comparative inconvenience in so far as the petitioner and the respondent along with children are concerned, in the given facts, it would be the respondent and children, who would suffer more inconvenience, in case the proceedings pending before the District Judge, Sirohi are transferred to Balotra. In view of the above discussion, no case for transfer of proceedings is made out, the transfer petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed.