IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.938 of 2004 BHARTI KUMARI @ BHARTI KUMARI JHA, WIFE OF ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY, D/O SRI BHUBNESHWAR JHA, R/V PACHGAMA, P.O.BHIRHA, P.S. ROSERA, DISTRICT SAMESTIPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT C/O BUBNESHWAR JHA, R/M RAGHUNATH TOLA, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, PATNA----PETITIONER. Versus SRI ARUN CHOUDHARY @ SRI ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF PARMANAND CHOUDHARY, R/V PARWANA, P.S. HATHAURI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR-------OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 11. 04.05.2009 Petitioner wife has applied for transfer of Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 21 of 2002 pending in the court of Additional District Judge-IV, Samastipur to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. Such prayer has been made on the ground of inconvenience caused to the petitioner in appearing before the court at Samastipur. It appears from the petition that the matrimonial home of the parties is situate at Dalsingsarai, which is within the Judgship of Samastipur. After filing of this case on 6.5.2004, court of Principal Judge, Family Court has been established at Samastipur and the present matrimonial suit must have been transferred to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur. Counsel is not aware about the establishment of the family court at Samastipur. He however, states that the proceeding is still pending in the court below. 2. In support of his plea of inconvenience of the petitioner in visiting Samastipur to contest the proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Prabha Gupta @ Munni Versus Santosh Kumar reported in 1996(2) 425 PLJR where the learned Single Judge, having appreciated the inconvenience of the wife to approach the court, directed transfer of the matrimonial suit filed in the District where the parties of the said suit last resided to the court at Patna. Learned counsel in this - 2 - connection, further relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Today in the case of Gurpreet Kaur @ Rinky Versus Vipin Kumar Gupta reported in 2007(7) Supreme 482. 3. There is no difficulty in appreciating the submission of the learned counsel that while considering the plea of transfer of matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is to be taken note of but the question is if all the matrimonial matters filed in the court of the different Principal Judge(s) are transferred to Patna Judgeship on the ground of inconvenience of the wife then there shall be abundance of the matrimonial proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna who will find it difficult to proceed with the suits and dispose them of within a reasonable time. In the fitness of things the matrimonial proceeding is required to be concluded at the earliest and appreciating such fact as also the fact that the husband of the petitioner is residing at Dalsingsarai has to travel to Samastipur, the petitioner should also travel from Patna to Samastipur to contest the proceeding. The husband opposite party must bear the travelling expenses of petitioner with reasonable comfort i.e. in AC-3 compartment. He should also bear the fooding and lodging charges for her at Samastipur. For every visit the opposite party must pay the petitioner Rs. 1,000/- over and above the travelling expenses. The Family Judge, Samastipur before whom the proceedings are pending, should ensure such payment to the petitioner by the opposite party and then proceed with the matrimonial suit. 4. This application is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)