ORDER : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. Applicant-wife has instituted the present transfer application with a prayer for transfer of the proceedings, instituted by the non-applicant-husband, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Tonk, to Family Court No.1, Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife, reiterating the contents of the transfer application submitted that the marriage of the parties was solemnized at Jaipur, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. 3. It is further asserted that on account of serious matrimonial discord between the parties for the applicant wife was subjected physical and mental cruelty, she lodged a complaint before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur, for offence under Section 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, leading to registration of an FIR No. 129/2013. The Governmental Enforcement Agency, after thorough investigation in the crime, has filed a charge-sheet. 4. According to the learned counsel, the proceedings have also been instituted by the applicant-wife for domestic violence, registered as criminal complaint No. 116/2013, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 16, Jaipur Metro. Since the non-applicant-husband is attending the proceedings aforesaid at Jaipur, therefore, there would be no inconvenience for him, in the event, the proceedings instituted by him, before the Family Court, Tonk, are transferred to Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. 5. The proceedings instituted before the Family Court, Tonk, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, is an act of the non-applicant-husband with a motive in order to further harrass and torture the applicant-wife, and therefore, the proceedings instituted before the Family Court, Tonk, needs to be transferred to Family Court No.1, Jaipur. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajni Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi; 2005 (12) SCC 237 and Nishapriya v. R.J. Sathish Kumar; II (2014) DMC 97 (SC). 6. Notice of the transfer application was issued to the non-applicant-husband. 7. Neither any response has been filed to the transfer application nor non-applicant-husband has appeared before this Court despite service of notice. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant-wife and with his assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at Bar. 9. 7. Neither any response has been filed to the transfer application nor non-applicant-husband has appeared before this Court despite service of notice. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant-wife and with his assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at Bar. 9. In the matters of matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is to be considered over that of the husband. The statements made in the transfer application have not been disputed by any response by the non-applicant-husband which have some substance. 10. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matrimonial proceedings of the like nature, the instant transfer application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 11. Accordingly, the proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Application No. 18/2015: Lalit Raghuvanshi v. Smt. Gunjan Rani @ Harshita), are ordered to be transferred from Family Court, Tonk to Family Court No. 1, Jaipur.