JUDGMENT : ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR, J. 1. Though this civil petition is listed for admission with the consent of both counsels it is heard finally. 2. This Civil Petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC for transfer of M.C. No.43/2017 from Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, to Family Court, Bengaluru. 3. The petitioner is the husband while the respondent is the wife. They were married on 28.11.2013 at Mysuru. On account of certain matrimonial complications and disputes the respondent/wife has field a petition under Section 1, 1(a) and 1(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Mysuru, seeking dissolution of marriage which is numbered as M.C. No.43/2017. 4. The petitioner has contended that his wife namely the respondent has field a false complaint alleging the dowry harassment which is registered in C.C. No.219/2015 for the offences under Section 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Thereafter she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which was numbered as M.C. No.213/2014 before the Principal Family Court, Mysuru. The said petition is still pending. The Family Court had also passed an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/-. Later it was reduced to Rs. 2,500/- as per the order passed in W.P. No.56531/2016. The petitioner is residing at Bengaluru with his old age parents and he has to look after his sister who is a school going child. The petitioner is working in a Bajaj Showroom drawing a meager salary of Rs. 7,932/-. As such he is finding it difficult to go to Mysuru frequently to attend the Court proceedings. If M.C. No.43/2017 is transferred from Family Court, Mysuru to Family Court, Bengaluru he can conveniently attend the Court proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent wife is residing in her parents' house at Mysuru. She do not have any income. Initially she had filed a miscellaneous petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition is still pending. As there was a delay in adjudication of the said case the respondent wife filed another petition seeking divorce and dissolution of marriage. Now, the respondent is leading life with the meager amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- which is ordered in W.P. No.56531/2016. As such, there are no valid grounds for transfer of M.C. No.43/2017 to Family Court, Bengaluru. As there was a delay in adjudication of the said case the respondent wife filed another petition seeking divorce and dissolution of marriage. Now, the respondent is leading life with the meager amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- which is ordered in W.P. No.56531/2016. As such, there are no valid grounds for transfer of M.C. No.43/2017 to Family Court, Bengaluru. In the event of transfer the respondent will be put to great hardship and inconvenience. 6. In view of the submission made by both the counsels, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there are valid grounds for transfer of M.C. No.43/2017 to Family Court at Bengaluru. 7. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the general power of transfer and withdrawal of the suits, appeal or other proceedings. The relevant provision is sub-section (1)(b) of Section 24, which is as under: "24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage, (a). (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it; and (i) try to dispose of the same: or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn. 8. In the case of M.V. Rekha v/s. Sathya Alias Suraj reported in, (2011) 2 KarLJ 643 , it is held as under: "15. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the spouses and behavioral pattern, their standard of life antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereon and the circumstances of either of the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. Further, when two proceedings in different Courts which raise common question of fact and law and when the decisions are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions." 9. In view of the submission made by both the counsel it is evident that M.C. No.213/2014 petition for restitution of conjugal rights and M.C. No.43/2017 petition for dissolution of marriage pending before the Family Court, Mysuru are clubbed. The counsel for the respondent submitted that these cases are posted for respondent husband's evidence. Under these circumstances, both the petitions shall have to be tried together in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. Hence there are no valid grounds for transferring the case from Mysuru to Bengaluru Family Court. 10. In the circumstances, the civil petition is rejected. No order as to costs. The petitions pending before the Family Court at Mysuru shall be disposed of expeditiously.