Judgment : 1. This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 30-1-2009 and granted interim stay for a period of four weeks. 2. Transfer CMP MP No.151/2009 is filed by the respondent to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court on 30-1-2009. 3. The Counsel on record made submissions and also further made a request to dispose of the Transfer CMP and hence the Transfer C.M.P. itself is being disposed of. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Transfer C.M.P. and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the convenience of the wife to be taken into consideration, the transfer to be ordered. 5. On the contrary, the Counsel for respondent had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit filed in support of the vacate application and would maintain that in the light of the same, it may not be just and proper to order transfer. The learned Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 6. Heard the Counsel. 7. The Transfer C.M.P. is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of O.P.No.1049/08 on the file of Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be tried along with F.C.M.C.No.61/2008 on the file of Family Court, Anantapur and to pass such other suitable orders. 8. It is stated by the petitioner that her marriage was celebrated with the respondent on 13-5-2007 at New Nallakunta Community Hall, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent went to Kerala for Honeymoon and returned to Bangalore and started living in a rented single bed room and the respondent left for Canada and retu7rned in November 2007 and is not interested in happy life and thus created a story and filed O.P.No.1049/2008 on the file of Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act and sought for a decree for dissolution of marriage and the same is pending consideration. It is further stated that the petitioner filed F.C.M.C.No.61/2008 on the file of Family Court, Anantapur seeking maintenance and also gave a report against the respondent, his father and mother under Section 498-A I.P.C. r/w. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Mahila Police Station, Anantapur, which was registered as Cr.No.30/2008 and the matter is under investigation. It is further stated that the respondent is attending the Court Family Court, Anantapur and as a counter-blast the respondent filed the O.P. for dissolution of marriage with false allegations that the petitioner has no knowledge about the Hindu customs and performance of poojas etc. It is further stated that the petitioner being a lady dependent on her old parents is unable to travel from Anantapur to Hyderabad and it is also stated that she apprehends danger to her life and hence prayed for transfer of F.C.O.P.No.1049/2008 on the file of Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Anantapur to be tried along with F.C.M.C.No.61/2008. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/husband it is stated that the respondent filed O.P.No.1049/2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for granting decree of dissolution of marriage and the Family Court ordered notice to the petitioner and adjourned the matter to 20-11-2008. As the summons was not returned within the date of adjournment i.e., 20-11-2008, the matter was adjourned to 17-12-2008 and directed the respondent to issue fresh process and adjourned the matter to 12-2-2009. On 12-2-2009 the petitioner appeared in person before the Family Court, Hyderabad and filed a memo stating that this Court had granted stay for four weeks. However, it is pertinent to note that no order copy had been appended to the said memo. Further it is stated that the petitioner had not specifically mentioned the actual dates of filing of F.C.M.C.No.61/2008 and the complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. r/w. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Cr.No.30/2008. The petitioner suppressed these facts with a malafide intention. The documents filed along with the Transfer C.M.P. would clearly speak that the petitioner filed F.C.M.C.No.61/2008 on 23-10-2008 and the complaint in Cr.No.30/2008 was lodged on 6-11-2008 whereas the respondent filed O.P.No.1049/2008 on 10-10-2008. The petitioner suppressed these facts with a malafide intention. The documents filed along with the Transfer C.M.P. would clearly speak that the petitioner filed F.C.M.C.No.61/2008 on 23-10-2008 and the complaint in Cr.No.30/2008 was lodged on 6-11-2008 whereas the respondent filed O.P.No.1049/2008 on 10-10-2008. Thus it is clear that it is the respondent who initiated the legal proceedings first and thereafter the petitioner filed both M.C. and the complaint at Anantapur. Further, the respondent denied the allegation that he attended the Family Court at Anantapur and as a counterblast he filed the O.P. for dissolution of marriage. It is further stated that the petitioner had not stated the reasons for seeking the transfer of the case. Reliance was placed on Sujata Mohanty Vs. Rudra Charan Mohanty I (2008) D.M.C. 708 10. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 11. The Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on Sushma Mishra Vs. Mithilesh Kumar Mishra I (2009) DMC 130 wherein while explaining the meaning of the word or expression "resides" it was held that it should be more than a temporary stay and has to be of permanent character. The learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the decision referred (1) supra wherein the learned Judge of Orissa High Court observed at paras 2 and 3 as hereunder:- "Learned Counsel for the opposite party-husband resists such prayer of the petitioner contending that the petitioner is not a Purda Nashin lady. She is rather quite used to travelling and she has no difficulty as stated by her. Further, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamaljit Kaur Vs. Prince Singh Chhabra, reported in 2006(1) O.L.R. 456, he submits that only on the ground that the wife is not able to travel alone the case should not be transferred from one Court to another. He stressed on the observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision which is as follows: "No ground is made out by the petitioner except to say that being a lady it is not safe for her to travel from Dhanbad, Jharkhand to Rourkela, Orissa. In our view, this is no ground for transfer at all". He stressed on the observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision which is as follows: "No ground is made out by the petitioner except to say that being a lady it is not safe for her to travel from Dhanbad, Jharkhand to Rourkela, Orissa. In our view, this is no ground for transfer at all". After perusing the decision cited above, and the materials available on record this Court declines to transfer the case from Cuttack to Rourkela, but then in consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court supra directs the husband-opposite party to pay all expenses for the to and fro travel of the petitioner from Rourkela to Cuttack along with a companion in train in a reserved 2nd class berth and their stay at Cuttack in a sophisticated hotel on each and every occasion she is required to come to Cuttack. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack shall assess the said expenses which the husband-opposite party shall send to the petitioner, in advance, by demand draft so as to reach her two weeks before her travel". 12. Whatever may be the discrepancy relating to the dates of filing or otherwise, the fact that the Maintenance Case is pending on the file of Family Court, Anantapur is not in serious controversy. No doubt, certain further details had not been referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the Transfer C.M.P., but that by itself, it cannot be said that the ground raised by the petitioner is not a bona fide ground for transfer. The convenience of the wife always may have to be taken into consideration while deciding the Transfer C.M.Ps. under Section 24 of the Code. 13. In the light of the same, O.P.No.1049/2008 on the file of Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Anantapur to be disposed of in accordance with law. 14. The Transfer C.M.P. is ordered accordingly.