IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3374 of 2010 Kumari Payal @ Payal Kumari Versus Mukund Bihari ---------------------------------- 3 16.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party. This is an application for transfer of the Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 105 of 2009 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Samatipur to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Muzaffarpur. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that both the parties are residing at Muzaffarpur, and as such, it would be convenient for both parties to participate in the above proceeding at Muzaffarpur. Besides the above, it is submitted that the petitioner has filed two cases against the opposite party at Muzaffarpur ; one being Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2009 for the offence under section 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and the other being Maintenance Case No. 110 of 2009. It is further submitted that in both the cases the opposite party has appeared and participating in the proceeding. As regards the matrimonial case transfer of which has been sought for in this application, it is submitted that the opposite party has concluded the examination of its witnesses and now it’s the turn for examination of witnesses on behalf of the petitioner and as such the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner for transfer of the aforesaid matrimonial case to Muzaffarpur. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the witnesses of the opposite party have been examined and discharged after their cross examination. It is further submitted that the petitioner is being paid litigation cost of Rs. 500/- on each date, and as such, the case may not be transferred as prayed for. Considering the submissions of the parties and their pleadings, the admitted facts are that the petitioner has filed criminal case and maintenance case against the opposite party at Muzaffarpur, as noticed above, in which the opposite party is appearing. The financial hardship is also not denied, however, submission on behalf of the opposite party is that the petitioner is being paid litigation cost of Rs. 500/- on each date, and as such, financial hardship should not come into the way. In the matrimonial case the opposite party has examined its witnesses and now it is the turn for examination of the witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. Considering the convenience and inconvenience of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it would be convenient for both the parties to take part in the case at Muzaffarpur where two other cases as aforesaid are pending and being contested by the parties. Besides, the opposite party has since already examined its witnesses, they are only required to cross examine the witnesses of the petitioner, if any, produced in the case. In the above circumstances, in the opinion of the Court it is expedient in the interest of justice that the aforesaid Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 105 of 2009 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Samastipur be transferred to the Family Court at Muzaffarpur. I order accordingly. Let the records of the aforesaid matrimonial case be sent to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Muzaffarpur immediately. Both the parties may appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Muzaffarpur on 16th November, 2011 when a fresh date of hearing be fixed for the examination of witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. The MJC application accordingly stands disposed of. Let the order be communicated to the District Judge, Samastipur for the needful through FAX on the cost being deposited by the petitioner. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)