JUDGMENT Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The opposite party as plaintiff filed Matrimonial Suit No.541 of 2019 against the petitioner. The suit is for nullity of marriage under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is pending before the 1st Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Barasat. The petitioner/wife has prayed for transfer of the said suit to Ranaghat mainly on the ground that distance between Ranaghat and Barasat and secondly, the petitioner has a child aged about 3 1/2 years and there is no other person to look after the said child. Therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to accompany the child regularly to Barasat from Ranaghat. Thirdly, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act praying for maintenance and other relieves against the petitioner at Ranaghat. In the said proceeding, the opposite party has already entered appearance. 2. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the opposite party is an employee under Ministry of Defence and now posted at Delhi. However, he filed the suit at Barasat showing his permanent resident within the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Barasat. 3. It is further argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that since the petitioner is maintaining the child who is aged about 3 1/2 years born in the wedlock between the petitioner and the opposite party, it is not possible for her to travel a distance of about 75 Kilometers in one way to contest the said suit at Barasat. The learned Advocate for the opposite party on the other hand, submits that the opposite party has filed Matrimonial Suit No.541 of 2019 for a decree that the marriage between the parties is a nullity on the ground that the petitioner had a subsisting marriage on the date of present marriage with the opposite party and she subsequently took divorce from her first husband. Thus, according to learned Advocate for the opposite party, it is not a simple case of divorce where the petitioner is entitled to get a liberal view while praying for transfer of the suit. 4. Thus, according to learned Advocate for the opposite party, it is not a simple case of divorce where the petitioner is entitled to get a liberal view while praying for transfer of the suit. 4. Learned Advocate for the opposite party also submits that the opposite party lodged a complaint against the petitioner against her misrepresentation that she was unmarried at the time of her marriage with the opposite party before the learned A.C.J.M. at Barrackpore. 5. Considering all such aspects of the matter, the learned Advocate for the opposite party invites the Court to pass necessary order in the instant proceeding. 6. It is, however, not disputed that in the wedlock between the petitioner and the opposite party a child is born and he is aged about 3 1/2 years. He is under the custody of the petitioner. He is being maintained by the petitioner at Ranaghat. A proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is also pending between the parties. 7. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the instant suit ought to be tried and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Ranaghat. The opposite party will not suffer much inconvenience if the suit is tried at Ranaghat because in either case he will have to come either to Barasat or Ranaghat from Delhi. 8. For the reasons stated above, the instant revisional application is allowed on contest however, without costs. Matrimonial Suit No.541 of 2019 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Barasat be transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Ranaghat for trial and disposal. 9. Office is directed to send a plain copy of this order to both the Courts below for information and compliance. 10. Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.