S. ANANDA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE two transfer CMPs are filed by the Petitioner- wife under Section 23 (3) of the Code of civil Procedure seeking transfer of O. P. No. 5 of 2002 and O. P. No. 265 of 2002 filed by the Respondent-husband on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, Medak district and Additional District Judge, sangareddy, Medak District respectively, to the file of the Family Court, Bangalore for consideration and disposal. Out of the above two OPs. , O. P. No. 5 of 2002 is filed for divorce, whereas the other o. P. No. 265 of 2002 is filed for the custody of the minor children. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she is working as a Software Engineer in Axes technologies (India) Private Limited, koramangala, Bangalore. The petitioner s marriage with the respondent was solemnised as per Hindu rites at Ramachandrapuram, bhel on 19-12-1992 and during their wedlock two children were born. The respondent is none other than the brother of the petitioner s mother. Though in the petition various allegations were made against the Respondent-husband, they were not pressed into service at the time of hearing. But, it is contended by the learned Counsel that transfer is required for rendering justice in accordance with law. It is the claim of the petitioner that she is a lone female member without any assistance from any male member and it is difficult for her to travel all the way from bangalore to the place where the present ops are instituted. Further, the travel would also costs heavily to the petitioner, as the petitioner may be required to attend the courts on number of occasions. It is also stated that the petitioner is intending to shift her young children to Bangalore, having taken a small accommodation and it would be difficult either to move with such young children very often from Bangalore to sangareddy and therefore, in order to render justice by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, it would be proper and in the interest of justice, the ops. , have to be transferred to Bangalore to be tried there. ( 3 ) A detailed counter has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-husband disputing and denying the allegations. , have to be transferred to Bangalore to be tried there. ( 3 ) A detailed counter has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-husband disputing and denying the allegations. In fact, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had deserted her husband since December, 1997 and has even instituted number of proceedings against the Respondent-husband. It is stated that the petitioner filed O. P. No. 121 of 1998 seeking divorce from the respondent, which was contested by the respondent and the same was dismissed. A criminal case was also filed in C. C. No. l 14 of 2001 under Section 498a of the Indian penal Code, which was also dismissed. The petitioner also filed M. C. No. l of 1999 claiming maintenance against the respondent, which was also dismissed. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the marriage was performed at Ramachandrapuram, BHEL and after their marriage the parties have last resided at Ramachandrapuram, within the jurisdiction of the Courts, where the present ops. , are instituted. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner that she had no male assistance and it is also difficult for her to travel, incurring huge expenses, is made only for the purpose of the present transfer petitions, seeking transfer of the ops, to Bangalore. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner filed counter in O. P. No. 265 of 2002 claiming that the petitioner had obtained CAT Card (Concessional annual Travel Card) and she regularly visits her children during the week-ends and she is also trying for getting transfer to hyderabad, to be with her children. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that what was contended by her is contrary to what was stated in her counter and this falsehood was advanced for the purpose of the present proceedings. The learned Counsel also contended that as the marriage took place within the jurisdiction of the Courts, where the OPs. , are pending and all the witnesses are residing within the jurisdiction of the present Courts, where the ops. , are pending, and as the witnesses are telugu speaking people, it would be difficult, apart from causing huge expenditure to the respondent, which will have the effect of denying justice to the respondent. , are pending and all the witnesses are residing within the jurisdiction of the present Courts, where the ops. , are pending, and as the witnesses are telugu speaking people, it would be difficult, apart from causing huge expenditure to the respondent, which will have the effect of denying justice to the respondent. The learned counsel also contended that the present application under Section 23 (3) is not maintainable, as the transfer is sought for from a Court, which is subordinate to this high Court to another Court, which is subordinate Court to another High Court and in such circumstances, an application would lie under Section 25 of the Code of civil Procedure and not under Section 23. Hence, both on merits as well as on maintainability, the learned Counsel sought for dismissal of the present transfer petitions. The learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, air 1990 SC 113 and in the case of G. Vijayalashmi v. G. Ramachandra Sekhara sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143 . ( 5 ) IN reply the learned Counsel for the petitioner cited various decisions rendered by various other High Courts viz. , salayandi Nadar v. Venugopala, AIR 1960 kerala 91, Swami Swaroopanand v. Ramji, air 1979 MP 50 , State Bank of India v. Sakow Industries, AIR 1976 Pandh 121, where it was held that where suit or proceedings, pending in a Court subordinate to the High court, is said to be transferred to a Court subordinate to another High Court, an application under Section 23 (3) would lie and the High Court within whose jurisdiction the proceedings were initiated has got the jurisdiction to transfer such suit or proceedings to a Court subordinate to another high Court. The learned Counsel also contended that in the matrimonial proceedings the Courts have to show leniency in favour of female members in order to render justice in accordance with law. If so construed the proceedings pending at sangareddy are to be transferred to the Court at Bangalore to be tried there. Hence, sought for the relief prayed for. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel also relied upon the decision in Ved Parkeash v. Seema, air 1988 Pandh 75 = 1989 KLJ 519. If so construed the proceedings pending at sangareddy are to be transferred to the Court at Bangalore to be tried there. Hence, sought for the relief prayed for. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel also relied upon the decision in Ved Parkeash v. Seema, air 1988 Pandh 75 = 1989 KLJ 519. ( 7 ) FROM the above rival contentions, the issue to be considered in these transfer petitions is whether there are valid grounds for allowing the transfer petitions? ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute as to the place of marriage as well as the place where the parties have last resided. Admittedly the place of marriage as well as the last residence of the parties is within the jurisdiction of Sangareddy, Medak District, where both the OPs. , are instituted and pending. The main contention of the petitioner seeking transfer is on the ground that the she is a female member, without any assistance of a male member and it is difficult for her to travel very often from bangalore to Hyderabad to participate as well as to contest the proceedings. According to the Petitioner, it also involves huge expenditure, which she is not in a position to bear and if the OPs. , are not transferred, it will have the effect of denial of justice. Hence, sought for transfer of the OPs. This is contested by the respondent, apart from showing the past conduct of the petitioner, where number of Proceedings have been instituted by her against the Respondent- husband not only for divorce in OP 121 of 1998, which was dismissed on contest; a criminal case was filed in CC No. 114 of 2001, under Section 498a against the respondent, which also ended in dismissal. Further, M. C. No. l of 1999 was filed for maintenance, though she was employed, which also ended in dismissal. Apart from that, in the counter filed by the petitioner in o. P. No. 265 of 2002, the petitioner had specifically stated that the minor children are residing at Hyderabad with their grand parents and further stated that she is also desperately trying for transfer to Hyderabad to be with her children and, in fact, she stated that she had obtained CAT Card and she was regularly visiting her children during week-ends. In the light of the said averments made by the petitioner, the learned Counsel contended that what was stated and contended now before this Court is an utter falsehood. From the above averments, contained in the counter filed by the petitioner in OP No. 265 of 2002, the claim that the Petitioner is without any male assistance and it is difficult for her to travel all the way from Bangalore to Hyderabad and to attend the cases, apart from causing huge expenditure, is clearly devoid of merit. ( 9 ) AS to the circumstances under which a suit or the proceedings can be transferred was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde (supra), where it was held: "the cardinal principle for the exercise of power under this Section is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. The question of expediency would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is true that if more than one Court has jurisdiction under the Code to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the Court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular court convenient to him. The mere convenience of the parties or any one of them may not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are not known where a party seeking justice chooses a forum most inconvenient to the adversary with a view to depriving that party of a fair trial. The parliament has, therefore, invested this Court with the discretion to transfer the case from one Court to another if that is considered expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words of wide amplitude - for the ends of justice have been advisedly used to leave the matter to the discretion of the Apex Court as it is not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or justifying the exercise of power. Words of wide amplitude - for the ends of justice have been advisedly used to leave the matter to the discretion of the Apex Court as it is not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or justifying the exercise of power. But the paramount consideration must be to see that justice according to law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of the case is imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even if it is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioner s plea for the transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone. " similar issue was also considered in the case of G. Vijayalakshmi v. G. Ramachandra sekhara Sastry (supra ). The Apex Court while rejecting the contention that in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is only Sections 21 and 21-A of the Hindu marriage Act that would apply and not section 25 of CPC. In the case of Ved parkash v. Seema (supra), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was considering an order passed under Section 10 CPC against which a revision was filed. In that case, the respondent-wife filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of additional District Judge at Delhi, while the husband filed a petition against the wife for divorce under Section 13 of the Act, in the court of Additional District Judge, Jind in haryana. The wife filed an application under section 10 for staying the proceedings, pending on the file of the Additional District judge, Jind, which was allowed against which a revision was filed by the husband. The punjab and Haryana High Court held that the powers of transfer under Section 21 -A of the Hindu Marriage Act being not exhaustive, in view of Section 23 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, it was a fit case where the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act before the Additional District Judge, jind should be transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi where the petition under Section 9 of the Act was already pending. The order of the Additional district Judge staying the proceedings under Section 10 CPC was vacated. The order of the Additional district Judge staying the proceedings under Section 10 CPC was vacated. Though the learned Counsel relied upon this judgment, the said judgment is not of any assistance to the Petitioner. ( 10 ) IF we examine the facts of the present case, in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that the provisions of Sections 23, 24 as well as section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure confer wider powers on the respective courts, referred under the provisions and such power has to be exercised, if it is satisfied that the order of transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. Therefore, unless ends of justice demand for a transfer, the transfer should not be allowed. Here, the claim of the petitioner is that she is not in a position to travel as well as such travel would be prohibitive by cost. These are the two major grounds on which arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioner. These two grounds are clearly contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner in her counter filed in O. P. No. 265 of 2002, where she had categorically stated that she had obtained a CAT Card and was travelling every weekend to be with her children, who are staying with their grand parents at Hyderabad. It is also her case that she has been desperately trying for her transfer to Hyderabad. Under these circumstances, the arguments advanced are clearly devoid of merit and are only brought up for the purpose of the present transfer petitions. Apart from that if the OPs. , pending at Sangareddy are transferred to Bangalore, it would cause lot of difficulty, and, in fact, that would have the effect of denial of justice to the respondent, as it would be difficult to take all the witnesses all the way to Bangalore, apart from the difficulty for the Courts at bangalore to record the evidence from the witnesses, who would give evidence in the vernacular language i. e. , Telugu. ( 11 ) UNDER the above circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in these transfer cmps and therefore, they are accordingly, dismissed. No costs.