IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1987 of 2009 KUMARI ARCHANA @ RINU, W/O Ajit Ranjan D/O Madan Mohan Mishra, resident of village- Babubarhi, P.S. Babubarhi, District- Madhubani. Versus AJIT RANJAN, S/O Ram Prasad Singh @ Kailash Singh, resident of village-Rewasi, P.S. Riga, District- Sitamarhi. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha,Advocate For Opp. Party :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur,Advocate Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad,Advocate. ----- 3. 2.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. The petitioner seeks transfer of Divorce Case No.101 of 2008 from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi to that of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani. The stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner had filed Matrimonial (Maintenance) Case No. 79 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956 for the grant of maintenance to her and her minor son. Subsequently the opposite party filed the Divorce Case No. 101 of 2008 at Sitamarhi with the sole purpose of harassing the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner being a lady, who resides with her father along with her minor son, - 2 - is finding it very difficult to pursue the divorce case at Sitamarhi. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the opposite party would be put to serious inconvenience, if the divorce case is transferred as he would have to travel about 80 K.M. for pursuing the said matter. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that in such matters, the view of this Court and the Apex Court is that the inconvenience caused to a female in travelling to another place for pursuing a matrimonial case in the socio- economic situation prevailing in the country, particularly in this State, would be much more than the inconvenience caused to the husband in pursuing such matter where the wife resides. Moreover in the present matter the maintenance case had been filed earlier and is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani and thus it would be appropriate that the divorce case is also tried by the same Court and in the said circumstances the inconvenience caused to the opposite party-husband would not be substantial, if both the matters are heard by the same Family Court. - 3 - In view of the above, it is directed that Divorce Case No. 101 of 2008 shall stand transferred from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi to that of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani. The application is, accordingly, allowed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )