1) convenience of wife is generally taken into account. 2) since wife is staying in jaipur and case is filed in kalyan it would be difficult for her to come to kalyan on each date. 3) it is better you engage a lawyer for opposing transfer application. 4) better option is to with draw RCR and file for divorce . even if you obtain decree for RCR you cant force your wife to stay with you. Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows the Supreme Court to transfer a matter from one state to another if justice so demands. Section 25 is based on the ‘doctrine of forum convenience’ which means –‘the best forum’ or a forum where a fair trial can be had’. The burden is on the person seeking a transfer to prove to the court that if the proceedings are not transferred she would suffer irreparable injustice, on the merits of the case (going unrepresented in the case) and with respect to personal life (loss of job/health/safety issues), she would also have to prove that the latter is irreparable in monetary terms. In Anandita Das v. Sirjit Dey (2006) The Hon’ble Supreme Court held “At one stage the Supreme Court was showing leniency to ladies. But Since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the Supreme Court. On an average 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is therefore, clear that the leniency of the Supreme Court is being misused by the women. The Supreme Court is now required to consider each petition on it’s own merit. In this case no ground for transfer has been made out”. In this case a transfer was refused – even though the woman had a young child of 6 years in her custody. The Court held that grandparents are there to look after the child. The Court also held that the wife need not come all the time, and could apply for exemption and her application would be considered on merits. Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Priti Sharma v. Manjeet Sharma - (2005) – the court, in the case of a wife seeking transfer on the grounds of being unemployed and unable commute, categorically held “merely because petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel” and the transfer petition was dismissed.