Transferpetition No. 2O4 of 2001 was allowed with a single line stating that the "Transfer petition is allowed,,. in the said case, transfer was sought from Delhi to Kanpoor which is a separate cily and the Court considered the factum that the wife has to travel to Delhi all the way from Kanpoor, where the convenience of the wife was the deciding factor. In Archanq Singh,s case (cited supra), transfer of the case was sought from Thane to patna. Though there is no representation on behalf of the husband, the transfer petition was allowed on the short ground that the lacly has to travel from Pune to Thana. In Shakunto.la Modi,s case. transfer r','as sought from Delhi to Dibrugarh. The Court had taken into consideration the fact that the respondent_ husband did not have any financial dilficulty and further directed the trial Judge to lix a firm date to avoid repeated visits of husband to Dibrugarh. In Neelam Kanwar's ccse, transfer was sought from Chandigarh to Mumbai. The convenience of the wife was taken into consideration, however, it may be noted that this is aiso a case of inter se transfer. Same is the case with Szmttha Stngh,s case 1(citedsupra). In all thejudgments, discretion of power was exercised under Articre r42 0f the constitution read with section
