JUDGMENT R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - This Tr.C.M.P. has been filed by the wife for transfer of F.C.O.P.No.226 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court-cum-District Judge, Tirupati to the Family Court, Kadapa. 2. The petitioner submits that the respondent/ husband, who had filed the F.C.O.P., is presently residing in the United States of America and he is represented by his father, who is his Power of Attorney. The petitioner further submits that the F.C.O.P. has been filed at Tirupati on the ground that the marriage has been solemnized at Tirupati. She further submits that she is presently residing at Kadapa with her parents who cannot accompany her to attend the Court at Tirupati. She further submits that even the power of attorney holder of the respondent herein, who is residing at Nellore, has to travel to Tirupati on the every adjournment of the case. She prays for transfer of the case from Tirupati to Kadapa on the ground that the distance between Nellore to Tirupati and the distance between Nellore to Kadapa is almost the same. 3. The respondent has filed a counter submitting that the GPA holder of the respondent is presently aged 61 years and it would be very difficult for the GPA holder to travel to Kadapa in as much as the GPA holder of the respondent travels to Tirupati by train, which is convenient while the journey from Nellore to Kadapa would have to be by road either by way of private vehicle or by way of bus, which is difficult for GPA holder, who is aged about 61 years and is suffering from B.P. and other age related ailments. 4. It is true that the petitioner, who is dominus litis, is permitted to choose the place of litigation subject to the conditions set out in the specific statute or the provisions of C.P.C. 5. In the present case, the petition would be definitely maintainable before the Family Court, Tirupati. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner seeks transfer on the ground that both parties to the case have to be travelling about 150 to 170 km and such travel would not be to the convenience of either party. 6.
In the present case, the petition would be definitely maintainable before the Family Court, Tirupati. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner seeks transfer on the ground that both parties to the case have to be travelling about 150 to 170 km and such travel would not be to the convenience of either party. 6. Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner herein is young and had lived in Australia for several years and it would not be difficult to her to travel from Kadapa to Tirupati while the same would cause difficulty for the GPA holder of the respondent. 7. Having heard both sides, I am of the view that making both parties travel to reach Tirupati would not lead to the convenience of both parties. However, even though the petitioner is young and is said to have travelled and resided in Australia by herself, one should not lose sight of the fact that the convenience of the wife is normally given preference. 8. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to transfer the F.C.O.P. from the Court of Judge, Family Court, Tirupati to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Kadapa. 9. It is also directed that the presence of the GPA holder of the respondent herein is dispensed with till his presence is necessary at the time of the trial only or if the Family Court, Kadapa finds it necessary to require the presence of the GPA holder for any specific day of hearing. It is further directed that the Family Court, Kadapa may also take steps to dispose of the case expeditiously and preferably within a period of nine (9) months from the date of the petition being transferred to the Family Court, Kadapa. 10. Accordingly, the Tr.C.M.P. is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.