~PETITIONER “: SIM. Anita sailu W/o Wk Sohu Aged r ik‘ ¢ 1 i l E \ § I x ~ I i ; HIeH coum‘ OF ¢HHA=mseARH éILAswR I abou-l' 22 yearls D/o Dwamku Sahu R/o Srriapam (Nqyapam) Tehsll-Abhanpur ’ Dismcf-Rmpun (C $) Versus RESPONDENT : ' Rqjesh Sahu 5/0 Mohon sahu Ag¢d abour r 24 years R/o DudFmadI Coiony, {maker Dnsfmct-Knnker C 6 , Present: Shri'Sa‘yendra Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner ‘ Shti B.R.Ghosh, legmed counsel wuth Shri som Kant Verma counsel for ‘lhe respondent. _ ORALORDER r (Passed on 14‘“ March 2007) The followmg oral order of the Court was passed by Dlllp Raosaheb V V Deshmukh J ‘ Heard 2., At the request of learned counsel " for the parlies, this. Transfer Petition (civil) is being disposed 'o'f finally af the stage of admission. . 3. Admittedly, the appircant $mt Anita Sahu resides at Srtlapara (Nayapara) Tehsll-Abhanpur, District Ralpur (C G) and CIVII Suit No 29-_ N2006 med under Section 13(a) of Hindu Marriage Act ls pending between the parties before the District Judge, Kanker ‘ 4. The case of the applicant herein ls that she has no indepenwnt source of income and has a minor child to support She is llvmg wrth her - parents and lt would be ememety lnoonvenient for her to agend the hearings at Kanker It Is, therefore, prayed that Civrl Surt No 29-NZOI6 V ending before the District Judge Kanker be/transferred to the Distrit p c . , J VA‘ i Judge' Raipur‘ Reluance was placed on / Bhadori a Vs Pravin Sin h Ramakant Bhad Neelam Prawn Slngh on reported In 2006(2) i 6 5. 0n the other hand Shn BRGhosh I respondent argued that the appiicant-Wife is already tecewmg maintenance from the husband and the Ciwl uit No 29-N2006 should not be transferred merely to suit the convenience of the Wif 6. Havmg heard nval contentions I am of th the petmon deserves to be allowed 7. \ It is the case of the petitioner that she Is .tl ‘has a small minor child to support at Sitiapara (Nayapara), Teshsll- Abhanpur District-Raipur (C G) During the course of arguments it was 'not disputed that the application for grant ofjmaintenanee tiled by the appllcant—Wlfe was also disposed of at Ralpur ),ln Neelam Pravm Slngh Bhadori a Vs Prawn Sin h Ramakant Bh o the apphcant~wxfe had a small child to support and that she had no Independent means of livelihood and was dependent on her parens were held to constitute relevant grounds while deciding an application for learned counsel for the e consrdered opinion that vmg wrth her parents and (supra), the fact that a ' I transfer of the case In view of the diétum of the Apex Conn in Sumlta Smgh Vs Kumar Sanjay and another (supra) It is the Wifes convemence that must be looked at The circumstances Indicated above are sufficient to order transfer of the CMI Suit No 29-N2006 from Kanker to Raipur 8. Consequently, the petition Is allowed ‘ ‘ pending before the Couit of District Judge, Kan Court of District Judge, Raipur Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge Raipur on 09 05 2007 A copy of Sd-/ i Raosaheb Deshmukh i Judge =. ‘ Ciwl Suit No 29-N2006 ker is transferred to the this order be sent to~tge District Judge at Kanker and Raipur M Dilip ANJ (SC) (NOC) 137 and Sumita Sin h Vs. Kumar San'a ' and another ‘ repoited in zoaz-AIR-sc-sss. V ‘ ’ , e n