JUDGMENT : Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a teacher in Kendriya Vidhyalaya No. 1, Ajmer. She is having two children, one is daughter aged 10 years and son is about 2 years of age. She cannot travel all along to Jaipur after taking leave, time and again, to contest the divorce petition pending against her before Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. He has further contended that despite of interim order dated 12.04.2017 passed by this Court, staying the proceedings pending before Family Court No. 1, Jaipur, the respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court and obtained an order for expeditious disposal of the divorce petition, preferably within six months. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he is in a job of private company and he can also not get leave time and again to pursue his matter at Ajmer. Further, his father is 75 years old and suffering from neurological disorders and mother is no more in this world. In such a situation, he cannot leave Ajmer. If so directed he is ready to pay the expenses of coming to Jaipur to the petitioner for attending the proceedings. He further contended that though he had appeared in this matter on 21.07.2017 but was not aware of the interim order passed by this Court on 12.04.2017. Since the petitioner was avoiding the service in the divorce matter, he preferred a writ petition before this Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order 14.11.2017 directing the family court to expedite the proceedings and if possible, to conclude the same within six months. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through all the material available on record. 5. Though respondent has also liability of attending his ailing father and being in a job of private company, he must be having difficulty in getting leave. Looking to the facts that petitioner is a lady who is also in Government Job and she has to discharge both the duties of an employee as well as mother, payment of expenses in attending the court at Jaipur is not a substitute of the services of a mother required for two toddlers. 6. Looking to the facts that petitioner is a lady who is also in Government Job and she has to discharge both the duties of an employee as well as mother, payment of expenses in attending the court at Jaipur is not a substitute of the services of a mother required for two toddlers. 6. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances, it deems appropriate that the divorce Petition No. 486/2016 (Pramod Singh v. Smt. Sarita Singh) pending under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur is hereby transferred to the Family Court, Ajmer. 7. The application stands allowed, in the above terms.