1 S.B.CIVIL TRANSFER PETITION NO.36/2006 Dr. Madhu Dixit vs. Manoj Kumar and another. DATE OF ORDER ::: 25.1.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot, for the petitioner. Mr. MS Purohit, for the respondent. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, wife of respondent no.1, has moved this petition seeking transfer of the Petition No.230/2005 which has been filed by the respondent no.1 and which is pending in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner on the ground that the petitioner is a young lady doctor and is residing at Sardar Shahar which is 145 kms. from Bikaner. The petitioner is seeking transfer of respondent no.1's divorce petition to the Court at Churu which is 45 kms. from Sardar Shahar. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 2 gave threats to the witnesses of the petitioner and tried to win over the witnesses of the criminal case launched by the petitioner against the respondent no.1 under Section 498A I.P.C. It is submitted that the petitioner is a young lady and there is nobody who can assist her to travel to Bikaner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has launched criminal case against the respondent no.1 which is pending at Sardar Shahar and, therefore, the respondent no.1 will come to Sardar Shahar. It is also submitted that the respondent no.1 is male and will have no difficulty to come to Churu from Bikaner. The respondent no.1 submitted his reply and also placed on record copy of movement register to show that the petitioner is frequently travelling here and there and she is in Government service and her post is transferable and, therefore, the petitioner cannot say that she need some help of someone even for travelling. It is also submitted that the petition has been filed in appropriate court and mere wish of the petitioner is no ground for transfer of the case from Bikaner to Sardar Shahar. Otherwise also, the petitioner cannot have any difficulty in attending the Court at Bikaner because of the reason that the case is pending in District Court where personal appearance on every date is not necessary. 3 I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a doctor and learned counsel for the petitioner admits that she is in government service, therefore, her job is transferable and she will have to go on transfer far away from his place of residence. The respondent also placed on record the copy of the movement register to show that the petitioner is moving frequently. From the facts mentioned above and as pleaded by the petitioner, no ground is made out for transfer of the divorce petition. In view of the above, this transfer petition, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya