IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.207 of 2007 ARVIND KUMAR SINGH Versus KIRAN DEVI ----------- 5. 8.7.2009 I.A. No.3062 of 2008 On a consideration of the reasons mentioned in the limitation petition, the delay in filing the review application is condoned. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of. The review application has been filed for modification of the order dated 18.7.2007 passed in M.J.C. 1351 of 2004, by which the transfer application of the opposite party has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was the sole opposite party in the transfer application after receipt of notice, had filed vakalatnama and due to non-appearance of his counsel, the transfer application has been allowed. From a perusal of the order under review, it is evident that although a vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party ( petitioner herein) was filed but no one appeared on his behalf. The matter was considered and decided on its merit on the basis of the well established principle that in a matter pertaining to matrimonial dispute, inconvenience caused to the wife is to be given greater preference than any inconvenience 2 caused to the husband on account of such transfer. The said proposition is supported by a long line of decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show as to how the order under review suffers from any error of law apparent on the face of the order. He has not brought on the record any factual circumstance that can be taken into consideration for coming to a different conclusion than what has been drawn in the order dated 18.7.2007. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the review application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)