1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Smt. Hemlata V/s. Shri Ravi Shankar Gautam (S.B. CIVIL TRANSFER PETITION No.83/2009) S.B. Civil Transfer Petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code Date of Order :: April 20, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Chobisa for the respondent. The petitioner claims that immediately after her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty for dowry demands and she has been deserted by her husband. She claims to be a resident of Bundi. The petitioner has admittedly filed cases, both criminal and civil, against the respondent-husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C., under Section 406, 498 IPC and a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to her, in order to counter-blast and in order to harass her financially and physically, the respondent has filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The petitioner further claims that since she is an unemployed lady, since she has a daughter, she finds it 2 extremely difficult to travel from Bundi and to attend the case pending before the Family Court, Jaipur. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that petitioner has already moved an application for being given expenses for her travelling and for contesting the case pending before the Family Court at Jaipur. Moroever, in case she were not to attend the proceedings, at worse, an ex-parte order would be passed against her. Since she has already filed a divorce petition, her intention not to join her husband is writ large. Therefore, she is not even bound to implement an ex-parte order which may be passed in favour of the respondent. Lastly no cogent reasons has been made out by the petitioner for transferring the case. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that in litigation initiated by the husband, he is duty bound to pay expenses for the wife to contest the case. Therefore, the petitioner should have pursued the application pending before the Family Court for payment of the expenses. Admittedly till date, the application has not been decided. Therefore, this petition is premature and it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-