JUDGMENT : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. The applicant/wife has preferred the instant transfer application i.e. S.B. Civil Transfer Application Number 112 of 2014 (Smt. Lalita Chohla v. Rohit Samaria), with a prayer for transfer of the proceedings instituted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act being Application Number 833 of 2014 (Rohit Samaria v. Smt. Lalita Chohla), pending before the Family Court Number 2, Jaipur, to Family Court at Sikar, District Sikar. 2. The connected transfer application i.e. S.B. Civil Transfer Application Number 88 of 2015 (Rohit Samaria v. Smt. Lalita Chohla), has been preferred by the non-applicant/husband (Rohit Samaria), with a prayer for transfer of the proceedings instituted by the applicant/wife, pending before the Family Court at Sikar, District Sikar, to the Family Court No.2, Jaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife vehemently argued that on account of matrimonial discord, the non-applicant/husband, harassed and tortured the applicant/wife and ultimately, deserted her. The applicant/wife, therefore, had to live with her parents at Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.). It is further urged that the applicant/wife is working as Government Teacher at Government Secondary School, Mandela, Bara at Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.), and it will be very inconvenient for the applicant/wife to attend the proceedings before the Family Court No.2, Jaipur, which have been instituted by the non-applicant/husband. Learned counsel would further urge that the distance between Fatehpur to Jaipur by bus/train is near about 200 km and the applicant/wife has also suffered some health problem on account of miscarriage. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Kalpana Deviprakash v. Dr. Deviprakash Thakkar: (1996) 11 SCC 96 , Smt. T. Gayatri Devi v. Dr. Tallepaneni Sreekanth: 2013 SCC On-Line 693, decided on 5th August, 2013; Nishapriya v. R.J. Sathish Kumar: II (2014) DMC 97 (SC) and Pratibha Kumari v. Mukesh Kumar Singh: 1 (2014) DMC 546 (SC). 4. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/husband asserted that the applicant/wife not only instituted criminal proceedings for she lodged an FIR No.4/2015 at Fatehpur Kotwali, District Sikar, for offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC, but has also instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/husband asserted that the applicant/wife not only instituted criminal proceedings for she lodged an FIR No.4/2015 at Fatehpur Kotwali, District Sikar, for offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC, but has also instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant/wife is a qualified lady as well as a Government servant and is frequently travelling by train and/or bus and therefore, there will not be any inconvenience for the applicant/wife to travel from District Sikar to Jaipur for attending the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, instituted by the non-applicant/husband. Alleging misuse of the leniency shown to the lady litigant in the matters of matrimonial disputes, learned counsel for the non-applicant/husband relied upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das: (2006) 9 SCC 197 ; which was also referred to and relied upon in the case of Smt. Hemlata v. Murari Lal Panchal, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Transfer Application Number 17 of 2007, decided on 17th September, 2007. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 6. It is not in dispute that the proceedings instituted by the applicant-wife for offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC are pending before the Court at Sikar, District Sikar. The proceedings instituted for restitution of conjugal rights are also pending at Family Court at Sikar, District Sikar. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the applicant/wife is residing at District Sikar with her parents and is also working as Government Teacher. In the case of T. Gayatri Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed transfer of the divorce proceedings instituted by the respondent/husband while setting aside the order of the High Court declining transfer of the divorce proceedings. In the case of T. Gayatri Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed transfer of the divorce proceedings instituted by the respondent/husband while setting aside the order of the High Court declining transfer of the divorce proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land observed that denial of transfer of the divorce proceeding to the place where the wife is working on the ground that the wife is not indigent lady and she is capable of contesting the suit by undertaking journey; was held to be of adverse effect in discharge of her professional duties where she was working for journey from the place of her professional duties to attend the proceedings on the divorce application instituted by the husband, would surely affect her performance and put her job at risk. The import of the order declining the transfer of the divorce proceedings was construed to mean that on one hand, the applicant/wife therein should live alone, maintain herself by living at her parents place and on the top of it give more attention to contest the divorce proceeding rather than looking to her job on which she is surviving in absence of any support from her husband, who not only seeks a decree of divorce but also at convenience by choosing a place of his choice to secure a decree of divorce. 7. For the reasons and discussions herein above, and in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the opinions aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the applicant/wife merits acceptance. 8. Consequently, S.B. Civil Transfer Application Number 112 of 2014 (Smt. Lalita Chohla v. Rohit Samaria), is hereby allowed. Application Number 833 of 2014 (Rohit Samaria v. Smt. Lalita Chohla), pending before the Family Court No.2, Jaipur, is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Sikar, District Sikar. 9. S.B. Civil Transfer Application Number 88 of 2015 (Rohit Samaria v. Smt. Lalita Chohla), preferred on behalf of the non-applicant/husband, is hereby dismissed. 10. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court at Sikar, District Sikar on 29th February, 2016. 11. No costs.