ORDER: 1. Heard Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent. 2. The petitioner/wife filed the present Transfer C.M.P. under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure ((hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience) praying for transfer of O.P.No.479/2007 originally filed before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar and subsequently transferred and renumbered as O.P.No.228/2008 before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, in the interest of justice and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. Sri Radhakrishna, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Transfer C.M.P. and would determination that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to order transfer as prayed for. 4. On the contrary Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the transfer as prayed for by the petitioner/wife cannot be ordered. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions. 5. The petitioner stated that her marriage with the respondent was celebrated on 17-6-2006 at Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District and that she is a native of Gadwal whereas her husband/respondent is a native of Wanaparthy which is also in Mahaboobnagar District. It is also stated that she has been working as Teacher in Government Practicing High School at Gadwal whereas the respondent/husband has been working as a Teacher at Moghiligadda Tanda, Farooq Nagar Mandal in the same Mahaboobnagar District. It is also further stated that while so on 22-6-2007, the respondent filed O.P.No.479/2007 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree of divorce. The said O.P. was transferred from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District and renumbered as O.P.No.228/2008 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. The said O.P. was transferred from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District and renumbered as O.P.No.228/2008 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. It is also further stated that the respondent filed the above O.P. at Hyderabad without filing it either at his native place Wanaparthy or place of working at Shadnagar with an intention to create inconvenience to the petitioner in attending the Court from Gadwal which is nearly 200 K.Ms. away from Hyderabad. The relatives of the respondent/husband and his close relatives are residing at Hyderabad and taking advantage of the same he is threatening the petitioner/wife every time she attends the Court at Hyderabad and has been bringing pressure on her through his close friends and relatives to give consent for divorce. Certain other further averments also had been made in paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Transfer C.M.P. filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. In the counter affidavit filed, certain averments had been denied and it is stated that the petitioner/wife was working as a School Assistant at Gadwal where as the respondent/husband also is working as a Teacher at Moghiligadda Thanda, Farooq Nagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. It is further stated that from the date of marriage, the petitioner was not cooperating to lead marital life and she had openly told the respondent that she was not interested in the marriage and threatened the respondent that he should not reveal the same to anybody about her non-interestedness in the marriage and several respondent allegations also had been made relating to overwhelming tactics. In such circumstances it is stated that the divorce O.P. had been filed. 7. It is needless to say that the merits and demerits of these allegations cannot be gone into at this stage. However, it is stated that the respondent has been working as a Teacher at Moghiligadda Thanda, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District and it is far away from the place to which the transfer is being prayed for. The respondent also stated that he has to look after his mother who is suffering from ill-health and who had undergone operation. The Counsel representing the respondent also placed strong reliance on Anindita Das Vs. The respondent also stated that he has to look after his mother who is suffering from ill-health and who had undergone operation. The Counsel representing the respondent also placed strong reliance on Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das 1 wherein the Apex Court observed at paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 as hereunder:- "In support of this petition, a large number of authorities have been cited, namely, Reena Bahri Vs. Ajay Bahri (2002) 10 SCC 136 , Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjii (2002) 10 SCC 480 , Ram Gulam Pandit Vs. Umesh J.Prasad (2002) 10 SCC 551 and Rajwinder Kaur Vs. Balwinder Singh (2003) 11 SCC 726). These authorities are all based on the facts of their respective cases. They do not lay down any particular law which operates as a precedent. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this 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 this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay all expenses to look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the court at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is adequately met. Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merits. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out". Reliance also was placed on Snehalatha Vs. S.Ramakrishna Reddy 2 8. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merits. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out". Reliance also was placed on Snehalatha Vs. S.Ramakrishna Reddy 2 8. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, especially the specific stand taken by the wife that the respondent/husband had not chosen to file the O.P. either at Wanaparthy or at Shadnagar and had chosen to file the same at Ranga Reddy and also in view of the other averments made in paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Tr.C.M.P., and further taking into consideration the stand taken in the counter affidavit as well, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief prayed for by the petitioner/wife to be granted. 9. Accordingly, O.P.No.228/2008 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District to be disposed of in accordance with law. 10. The Transfer C.M.P. is accordingly ordered. No costs. ? 1 (2006) 9 S.C.C. 197 2 2002(1) A.L.D. 130