JUDGMENT 1. Instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner- wife seeking transfer of the Divorce Petition bearing No.217/2019 titled as Deepak Kumar Vs. Komal filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') by the respondent-husband, from the Court of Additional District Judge, No.1, Rajgarh District Churu to the concerned Family Court, Jhunjhunu. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife submits that the petitioner-wife had lodged an F.I.R. against the respondent- husband and his family members for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of I.P.C. Counsel further submits that the petitioner-wife filed an application under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent-husband and his family members before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu and also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the respondent-husband before the learned Family Court at Jhunjhunu, which are still pending for adjudication. Counsel also submits that the respondent-husband has filed the divorce petition only to harass the petitioner and threatened her to withdraw the aforesaid cases. Counsel contends that the petitioner-wife alongwith her two children is presently living with her parents in Jhunjhunu. Furthermore, the financial condition of the petitioner is very poor and she is dependent on her parents and, therefore, she is not in a position to travel the distance of about 150 kms., from Jhunjhunu to Rajgarh to defend her case. Counsel further contends that there is no one in her family to accompany her to Rajgarh for defending the aforesaid case. Counsel also contends that in another cases i.e. under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the criminal trial is pending at the Family Court, Jhunjhunu and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, respectively. Thus, there is no difficulty for the respondent to defend all the cases in Jhunjhunu. Lastly, counsel prays that the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 filed by the respondent may be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, No.1, Rajgarh District Churu to the Family Court, Jhunjhunu. 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife, has relied upon the following judgments of this Court :- (i) Anshu Bhatnagar Vs. 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife, has relied upon the following judgments of this Court :- (i) Anshu Bhatnagar Vs. Rajendra Bhatnagar, reported in 2013 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 139, (ii) Smt. Anjesh Kanwar Vs. Rajpal Singh Bhati (S.B. Civil Transfer Application No.220/2018) decided on 12.04.2019, (iii) Smt. Seema Vs. Navaratan Pitti (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No.14/2015) decided on 10.08.2015' and (iv) Smt. Ranjana Vs. Manoj Kumar (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No.37/2015) decided on 05.08.2016. 4. The transfer application has strongly been contested by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband and it has been contended on his behalf that the cases arising out of District Churu falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur, therefore, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur does not have the jurisdiction to hear the present transfer application. Counsel has further contended that an F.I.R. bearing No.3/2020 has been lodged on 11.01.2020 after filing of the divorce petition, having false allegations against the respondent-husband and his family members. Counsel has also contended that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on 06.01.2020 i.e. also after filing of the divorce petition by the respondent-husband. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a Teacher and her family members are financially sound. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has no inconvenience in attending the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Rajgarh District Churu. Lastly, counsel has prayed that the petitioner-wife had filed the present transfer application without having any reason to transfer the divorce petition from Rajgarh District Churu to the Family Court, Jhunjhunu. Hence, the transfer application may kindly be dismissed. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, has relied upon the following judgments :- (i) Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association Vs. Union of India, reported in 2001 (2) SCC 294 (ii) Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in W.L.C. 2010 (2) 584 and (iii) Shailey Madne w/o Pankaj Kumar Madne Vs. Pankaj Kumar Madne, S/o J V Madne, reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 635 . 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material made available on record. 7. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in W.L.C. 2010 (2) 584 and (iii) Shailey Madne w/o Pankaj Kumar Madne Vs. Pankaj Kumar Madne, S/o J V Madne, reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 635 . 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material made available on record. 7. The judgments referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anshu Bhatnagar (supra) had allowed the transfer application and directed that the case filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by the non-applicant-husband before the Family Court, Jodhpur be transferred to the Family Court, No.2, Jaipur, in another case of Smt. Anjesh Kanwar (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, had allowed the transfer application and directed that the divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by the applicant-husband before the Family Court, No.1, Bikaner be transferred to the Family Court, Jhunjhunu, and also in another case of Smt. Seema (supra), Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, had allowed the transfer application and directed that the divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by the applicant-husband before the Family Court, Bikaner be transferred to the Family Court, Jhunjhunu, and also in the case of Smt. Ranjana (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, had allowed the transfer application and directed that the divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by the applicant-husband before the Family Court, Churu be transferred to the Family Court, Jhunjhunu, fail to advance the case of the petitioner at this stage, as learned counsel appearing for respondent-husband, has raised the issue of jurisdiction. 8. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association Vs. Union of India, reported in 2001 (2) SCC 294 , has held as under :- '18. It was submitted at the end by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned order has observed that the permanent bench at Jaipur shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the cases arising out of the 11 specified districts and the High Court at Jodhpur shall not have jurisdiction to hear those cases which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench. He submitted that the use of word exclusive pre-fixed to jurisdiction is uncalled for. We find no substance in this contention as well. The purpose of the Presidential Order is to carve out and define territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat at Jodhpur and the permanent bench seat at Jaipur. The cases are to be heard accordingly unless the Chief Justice may exercise in his discretion the power vested in him by the proviso to para 2 of the Presidential order. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or permanent bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason why the principle underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent bench seat of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test-from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.' (Emphasis supplied) 9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in W.L.C. 2010 (2) 584, held as under :- '9. Perusal of the aforesaid para clarifies that a specific bifurcation in regard to the territorial jurisdiction has been made between the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and the Permanent Bench at Jaipur. The case therein was accordingly taken up in reference to Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore judgment in case of Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in AIR 1976 SC 331 was referred. The aforesaid judgment also clarifies territorial jurisdiction while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therein cause of action becomes relevant. 16. Perusal of the aforesaid notifications shows that all the cases arising out of the revenue districts mentioned in para (a) of notification dated 23.12.1976 were transferred to Jaipur and ordered to be disposed of by the Court at Jaipur. An explanation was added but same was in respect of writ cases. 16. Perusal of the aforesaid notifications shows that all the cases arising out of the revenue districts mentioned in para (a) of notification dated 23.12.1976 were transferred to Jaipur and ordered to be disposed of by the Court at Jaipur. An explanation was added but same was in respect of writ cases. This clearly indicates that other than writ cases to be dealt with as per explanation, other cases were to be transferred and subsequent institution of the cases was to be as per the Presidential order. The subordinate Court working under the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat at Jodhpur or Permanent Bench at Jaipur become determining factor for further appeal or maintaining further miscellaneous petition. So far as the writ jurisdiction is concerned, that has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocate Association's case (supra). Last para of which has been quoted because last para of the aforesaid judgment makes a reference of exclusive jurisdiction of Permanent Bench at Jaipur vis-a-vis Seat at Jodhpur. For jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that functional bifurcation of the territorial jurisdiction between Principal Seat and Permanent Bench would where cause of action took place. In case of any dispute, applying the test given in the aforesaid judgment, individual case would be decided. This is in regard to the writ jurisdiction otherwise functional bifurcation as recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (supra) makes it clear that for 11 Districts, Permanent Bench, Jaipur would be having exclusive jurisdiction. There is a bifurcation of the territorial jurisdiction for functioning between Principal Seat and Permanent Seat. It is divided with the subordinate Courts working in the respective revenue districts mentioned in the Presidential and Chief Justice's order read with High Court Rules. In view of the aforesaid, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the Court at Churu cannot be maintained at Permanent Seat at Jaipur as Churu District falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat at Jodhpur as per bifurcated functional jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied) 20. In view of the aforesaid, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the Court at Churu cannot be maintained at Permanent Seat at Jaipur as Churu District falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat at Jodhpur as per bifurcated functional jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied) 20. Coming to the facts of this case, since cognizance order has been passed by the subordinate Court falling within the functionally bifurcated territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat at Jodhpur, thus the order passed by the said Court can be challenged by maintaining appeal, revision or miscellaneous petition before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur alone. The position for filing of the writ petition may, however, be different. (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of Shailey Madne w/o Pankaj Kumar Madne Vs. Pankaj Kumar Madne, S/o J V Madne, reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 635 , Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench), held as under :- '9. It is a undisputed fact that the aforesaid Family Court of Bhopal comes under the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at Jabalpur, while, the Family Court at Gwalior comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Bench of this Court at Gwalior and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Sections 23 & 24 of CPC read along with Rules of Chapter 3 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008, such transfer petition could not be entertained at this Bench at Gwalior.' 11. Present transfer application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner- wife for transferring the H.M. Case No.217/2019 (Deepak Kumar Vs. Komal) filed by the respondent-husband before the Court of Additional District Judge, No.1, Rajgarh District Churu to the Family Court at Jhunjhunu for its further trial. 12. Present transfer application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner- wife for transferring the H.M. Case No.217/2019 (Deepak Kumar Vs. Komal) filed by the respondent-husband before the Court of Additional District Judge, No.1, Rajgarh District Churu to the Family Court at Jhunjhunu for its further trial. 12. It is undisputed fact that the aforesaid Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Rajgarh District Churu comes under the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur, while the Family Court at Jhunjhunu comes under the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Bench at Jaipur and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and aforesaid discussions made in the cases of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (supra), Arun Kumar Gupta (supra) and Shailey Madne w/o Pankaj Kumar Madne (supra), such transfer application cannot be entertained by the Bench of this Court at Jaipur. 13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present transfer application is not maintainable before this Bench, as the petitioner-wife has a remedy to approach the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Additional District Judge, No.1, Rajgarh District Churu to the Family Court at Jhunjhunu. 14. Accordingly, instant transfer application is dismissed. The petitioner-wife would, however, be at liberty to file afresh transfer application before the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur. 15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.