JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of the notice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of the application No. 696/2012 & Restoration Application No. 18/2014 (Harinarayan v. Sanju) from Family Court, Jaipur to Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu. 3. Facts appertained to the present transfer application are that the applicant married the respondent on 11.05.2013 according to the Hindu customs at Sujangarh, District Churu. After the marriage their matrimony got disturbed, for which the applicant-wife started living with her parents in Sujangarh while the respondent-husband has been living in Jaipur. 4. The non-applicant - husband filed an application for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been registered in the Family Court, Jaipur as case No. 696 of 2012 & Restoration Application No. 18/2014. 5. The applicant-petitioner has filed the present application, seeking transfer of the case from Jaipur to competent Court at Sujangarh interalia stating that she does have any source of income and living with her parents, alongwith her minor daughter. 6. In light of the facts aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that taking up a journey to Jaipur for participating in the proceedings lodged by the respondent, for dissolution of marriage is troublesome as the same only involves cost, but consume time also. Besides this difficulty, the application has to carry her minor daughter to Jaipur as and when matter is listed before the Family Court, Jaipur. 7. This Court in the judgment rendered in case of Smt. Vinita v. Himanshu, reported in AIR 2017 Raj 102 , has held as under:- "It is, therefore, felt imperative to examine and explore the necessary principles governing transfer applications, filed by families, entangled in forensic fights, while invoking powers conferred upon this Court by Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to this Court, the provisions of Section 24 of the Code provides a great deal of discretion in the court, however, such discretion is required to be exercised on the basis of sound principles. According to this Court, the provisions of Section 24 of the Code provides a great deal of discretion in the court, however, such discretion is required to be exercised on the basis of sound principles. It is true that the discretionary power, more particularly, the jurisdiction in relation to transfer of cases, can be imprisoned or bound within a straight jacket or cast-iron formula, uniformly applicable to all situations, yet the courts are required to be mindful of the fact that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Keeping in mind the provisions and mandate of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code, various judicial pronouncements have laid down broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer of a case. Generally speaking, they are, balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience arising out of a particular place of trial, having regard to the nature of evidence or the points involved in the case; issues raised by the parties; and, reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant that he might get justice in the court, where the proceedings are pending, or reasonable apprehension of failure of justice on the basis of a proven bias. These few factors are some of the aspects, germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceedings. It may be true that distance alone may be decisive factor but it has its own role while considering the convenience of the parties, particularly, a wife. Court should focus on the convenience rather than redressal or mitigating against inconvenience. Convenience itself is a vital factor, to be reckoned while deciding a Transfer Petition." 8. In view of the facts and law aforesaid, this Court deems it appropriate to withdraw the case No. 696 of 2012 & Restoration Application No. 18/2014 from Family Court, Jaipur and transfer the same to Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu. 9. Copy of this order be sent to Family Court, Jaipur, Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu as well as the respondent. 10. The application stands allowed.