JUDGMENT M. Venkata Ramana, J. - This transfer petition is filed under section 24 of C.P.C. by the petitioner who is the wife of the respondent, for transfer of G.O.P.No.308 of 2019 now pending on the file of the Court of the Learned Family Judge cum V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam on to the file of the Court of learned Family Judge, Vijayanagaram. 2. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 12-04-2007. They have two (2) issues also born on 01-03-2008 and 05-06-2013 respectively. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is staying along with her children at K.L.Puram, Vijayanagaram whereas the respondent is resident of Visakhapatnam. Disputes arose in between this couple. Both the parties have assigned reasons against each other including such allegations which require determination at an appropriate stage, by the courts concerned. 3. Now the contention of the petitioner is that, the respondent has instituted G.O.P.No.368 of 2019 in the Family Court, at Visakhapatnam under section. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as a counter blast to her claim for maintenance in F.C.M.C.No.11 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Family Judge, Vijayanagaram. It is her further contention that because of the distance in between these two (2) places and financial difficulties, she is unable to attend the Family Court, at Visakhapatnam. Presence of children with her apart from security issues are also raised by her in this context. 4. The respondent did not choose to appear in this matter even though he is served notice. He is not represented by any one in this matter now. 5. The reasons set out by the petitioner in this petition, cannot be brushed aside as such. The respondent may not find it difficult to attend the court at Visakhapatnam being a resident of the same place and whereas the petitioner should go to Visakhapatnam all the way from Vijayanagaram, leaving her children under the care of her parents, if necessary. Even otherwise, since already the maintenance case is pending in the Family Court at Vijayanagaram filed by the petitioner, the respondent has to necessarily appear therein to pursue the matter. Even otherwise, since already the maintenance case is pending in the Family Court at Vijayanagaram filed by the petitioner, the respondent has to necessarily appear therein to pursue the matter. Therefore, in these circumstances, if the petition filed by him for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, at Visakhapatnam is transferred to Vijayanagaram, it would not result in any hardship nor would cause any inconvenience to him. Thus, the balance of convenience tilts more in favour of the petitioner than the respondent, in this respect. 6. Therefore, there is justification in the request of the petitioner. Hence, this petition has to be ordered. 7. In the result, the transfer petition is allowed. G.O.P.No.368 of 2019 now pending on the file of the court of the learned Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is withdrawn and is transferred on to the file of the Court of learned Family Judge-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vijayanagaram for disposal in accordance with law. No costs. 8. Pending petitions if any, stands closed. 9. Interim orders, if any, stands vacated.