Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein. The respondent had filed O.P. No. 188 of 1996 on the file of the First Additional Family Court, Chennai for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The Transfer C.M.P. No. 14264 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that she is residing at Kumbakonam and every time, she has to trouble her old parents to accompany her to attend the Court, by this the petitioner is put to lot of inconvenience. Further, she is not in a position to attend the Court regularly. The respondent on the other hand will not be prejudiced in attending the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam and hence the O.P. can be transferred to sub-Court, Kumbakonam. 2. The respondent herein filed a counter stating that the O.P. is ready for disposal and at this stage, if the O.P. is transferred to Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, it will further delay the disposal of the matter. The respondent is unemployed and seeking for an employment at Madras. There is absolutely no sufficient cause for the transfer of O.P. from the Additional Family Court Chennai to Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent reiterated what is stated in the affidavit and in the counter. I carefully considered the contentions of both the counsels. The transfer is being sought for only to avoid inconvenience to the petitioner. If the petitioner has to travel from Kumbakonam to Chennai, she has to undertake a night journey, in order to avoid any stay at Chennai. If she wants to avoid night journey, she has to undertake day time journey by which she will be forced to stay at Chennai. Either way, she may require an assistance. It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner is being accompanied by either of her parents. When the parents are aged, it is not proper for the petitioner to trouble them. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent represented that his client is willing to pay the travelling expenses to the petitioner and her companion, and also the expenditure incurred at Chennai. In fact, in the Counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the respondent has offered to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- by way of maintenance per month and Rs. 150/- by way of conveyance for every hearing. In fact, in the Counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the respondent has offered to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- by way of maintenance per month and Rs. 150/- by way of conveyance for every hearing. The petitioner did not accept the offer. This only reveals the intention of the respondent that at any cost, the petitioner should be dragged to Chennai under the guise of litigation. 5. I also enquired both the Counsels as to any possibility of settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner is willing to join with the respondent herein. But, however, the learned counsel for the respondent represented mat the respondent is not willing to take the petitioner back. It may be pertinent to note mat the respondent filed the OP. for dissolution of marriage. When the convenience of the parties comes in, naturally, the convenience of both the parties may have to, be taken into consideration. If not, the patties inconvenience has to be considered. At this stage, no doubt the petitioner is put to hardship. When the respondent is an unemployed, I do not think that mere will be any hardship for him in attending the Court at Kumbakonam. Merely because the respondent is willing to pay the travelling expenses, the parents of the petitioner cannot be forced to undertake the journey. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to me judgment reported in AIR 1990 Karnataka 146 (S.S. Shyamala v. C.S. Srikantaiah) wherein the learned Judge held as follows: “These cases deserve to be viewed from a human angle with due consideration for the unemployed-wife who is living at the mercy of her brother. At least to the extent of overcoming avoidable expenditure some relief would be available to the petitioner if the case is transferred from Tumkur to Bangalore. The Court cannot shut its eyes to human misery. The predicament of the petitioner is aggravated by lack of economic independence.” In another case, reported in AIR 1993 Karnataka 1987 (SMT. At least to the extent of overcoming avoidable expenditure some relief would be available to the petitioner if the case is transferred from Tumkur to Bangalore. The Court cannot shut its eyes to human misery. The predicament of the petitioner is aggravated by lack of economic independence.” In another case, reported in AIR 1993 Karnataka 1987 (SMT. Nanda Kishori v. S.B. Shivaprakash) the learned Judge held as follows: — “Society has awoken from its slumber and has by various ameliorative legislative enactments has attempted to improve the social status of a woman from the traditional bond of slavery as adage goes, that: When a woman is in her teens she is a slave to her parents, in her adolescence she is a slave to her husband, in her evening of her life, she is a slave to her children. “To quote Sydney Brandon in his treatise 1, In violence of Family: “To live under perpetual authority of a man whom one hates is itself a state of slavery but to be compelled to submit to his embraces is a misfortune too great a slavery.” As such, whenever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer in matrimonial matters Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the spouses and the behavioral partem of their standard of life antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereon and after the snap of the knot which resulted in marriage, the circumstances of either of the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance of life.” The learned Judge further held as follows: — “It is but natural for a party in such circumstances to make a plea to the Courts of equity to transfer the proceeding to a place where they would be in a best position, to defend their case and in the instant case, wife who has sought transfer of the matrimonial proceedings from Bangalore where she has no moorings to a place wherein she is leading life of destitution with her aged parents could be characterised as either perverse, vindictive or based on no materials.” 7. I entirely agree with the principles laid in the above Judgments. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition can be ordered. I entirely agree with the principles laid in the above Judgments. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition can be ordered. Accordingly, O.P. 188 of 1996 is transferred from the First Additional Family Court, Chennai to the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam. The transfer C.M.P. No. 14264 of 1997 is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. No. 14265 of 1997 is dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs.