ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband seeking for withdrawal of proceedings in M.C.No.144/2020 pending on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada and transfer of the same to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. 1. Facts of the case:- (i) The facts that are made out in the petition are that the petitioner and respondent have entered into a matrimonial relationship by solemnization of marriage on 06.12.2009 at Virudhunagar, Tamilnadu. It is stated that subsequently the marriage was registered on 22.10.2010, and that initially the petitioner and respondent were residing at Bengaluru at the time of their marriage. The further fact that is not in dispute is that the petitioner is a software professional and has been working in 'Oracle India Pvt. Ltd.,' while respondent is a doctor by profession presently practicing at Mangaluru. (ii) It is stated that from within the wedlock, the petitioner and respondent have two sons, viz., Master Neev Sriram and Master Kanav Sriram, both of whom are staying alongwith the respondent as on date, at Mangaluru. It is submitted that there were differences in the matrimonial relationship and frequent quarrel amongst them. In December 2017, it is asserted that the respondent has left the matrimonial home alongwith her children and has been residing in Mangaluru ever since, along with her parents. (iii) Facts would also reveal that there are various litigations pending between the parties and at present, M.F.A.No.3481/2020 filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the order passed in G & WC No.8/2018 is pending consideration before this Court and also CCC No.526/2020 (Civil) is stated to have been initiated by the petitioner herein, which is pending consideration. (iv) The visitation rights have been granted to the petitioner-husband to meet the children two days in a week during the week end at the place of residence of respondent as per the order dated 22.09.2020 passed in M.F.A.No.3481/2020. (v) The petitioner in the meanwhile has filed the present petition seeking transfer of proceedings in M.C.No.144/2020 before the Family Court, Bengaluru instituted by the respondent seeking dissolution of matrimonial relationship and has submitted that the Court at Mangaluru is about 350 Kms. (v) The petitioner in the meanwhile has filed the present petition seeking transfer of proceedings in M.C.No.144/2020 before the Family Court, Bengaluru instituted by the respondent seeking dissolution of matrimonial relationship and has submitted that the Court at Mangaluru is about 350 Kms. from Bengaluru and travelling such distance is difficult and inconveniences him, that it interferes with his work and would involve obtaining leave from his employer to attend the legal proceedings, that there are other litigations pending before the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru including M.F.A.No. 3481/2020 and CCC No.526/2020 in which the respondent is prosecuting through a legal counsel and accordingly, the respondent would not find it inconvenient to attend the proceedings, if the same is transferred to Family Court at Bengaluru. 2. Contentions of petitioner:- (i) Ms.Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Rohan Kothari for the petitioner has contended that the witnesses in support of petitioner’s defence in M.C.No.144/2020 instituted by the respondent-wife seeking dissolution of marriage are predominantly residents of Bengaluru and for a fair trial, it would be appropriate that the proceedings are transferred to the Court at Bengaluru. It is also submitted that the respondent being a medical professional is capable of prosecuting the proceedings at Bengaluru. (ii) It is further contended that the balance of convenience or inconvenience to the petitioner/plaintiff or respondent/defendant or the witnesses and all other relevant considerations need to be taken note of and it cannot be a universal rule that in all matters, the inconvenience of the wife is given precedence. (iii) It is also submitted that the respondent, who is a doctor by profession who is working at Mangaluru leaves her children with her parents when she goes to work and hence, the mere fact that she has children residing with her ought not to come in the way of Court withdrawing the proceedings and transferring the case to Bengaluru. It is stated that apart from visitation rights that has been granted by this Court, by virtue of which the petitioner travels every week end to visit the children at the residence of respondent at Mangaluru, if the petitioner is required to attend the legal proceedings at the Court at Mangaluru also, in effect, the employment of petitioner will be in jeopardy as no employer would accommodate repeated absence. (iv) It is asserted that the petitioner on an earlier occasion had instituted proceedings for custody of children before the jurisdictional Court at Mangaluru and much time was spent travelling from Bengaluru to Mangaluru and the petitioner ought not to be put to much more inconvenience by continuing to defend the proceedings in the Court at Mangaluru. (v) Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 to contend that each petition must be considered on its merits and it is pointed out that the Apex Court was considering a case where the child was aged 6 years, and as the respondent was willing to pay all the expenses towards travel and stay of the petitioner, the request for transfer was declined. (vi) Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Telangana High Court in the case of Chakradharamahanthi Vekata Maikya Prasuna v. Chakradharamahanthi Vekata Ramana Murthy, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 755, and it is contended that the weight of inconvenience caused to both parties needs to be evaluated and if the inconvenience of one party outweighs the inconvenience of other party, taking note of the same, the court, depending on the facts and circumstances may exercise power to withdraw the pending matrimonial case from one court and may transfer the same to other court. Accordingly, it is contended that in the present factual matrix there must be a comparative evaluation of the inconvenience of the parties and the petitioner's inconvenience outweighs the inconvenience of the respondent justifying transfer of the proceedings as sought for. (vii) Further reliance is placed on the judgments of Apex Court in Meenakshi v. Mukesh Kumar, (2004) 13 SCC 497 , M.Sivagami v. R.Raja, (2005) 12 SCC 301 , Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma, (2005) 11 SCC 535 to contend that in many instances, the transfer petitions filed by wife have been rejected and the transfer petitions filed by husband have been allowed and it is essentially a factual consideration on merits of each case. (viii) It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the witnesses relied upon by the petitioner in support of her defence are residing at Bengaluru and if the proceedings were to continue at Mangaluru, the ferrying of itnesses to Mangaluru would not only inconvenience the petitioner and witnesses, but also may result in interfering with the right of fair trial as the witnesses may hesitate to travel to Mangaluru which would affect the petitioner's case. (ix) It is also submitted that it is not a universal rule that in all matters convenience of wife must be given precedence and in appropriate cases, by placing reliance on the judgments referred to supra at para-13, it is asserted that the plea for transfer at the instance of petitioner-wife, where the respondent-husband is ready and willing to pay the expenses towards travel and stay has been rejected. While placing strong reliance on the judgment of Telangana High Court in the case of Chakradharamahanthi Vekata Maikya Prasuna (supra), it is pointed out that there must be serious application of mind as regards the inconvenience of both parties and after weighing such inconveniences, an appropriate decision is to be taken. (x) It is submitted that this is a fit case, where the inconvenience of petitioner-husband if taken note of as adverted to above and also noticing that the respondent on the other hand is a medical professional and Ophthalmologist as is borne out of the records and that the parents of respondents look after the children when she is at work and accordingly the inconvenience of the petitioner-husband outweighs the inconvenience of the respondent-wife warranting the allowing of the petition. 3. Contentions of respondent:- (i) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – wife has filed the detailed statement of objections and has opposed the transfer petition. 3. Contentions of respondent:- (i) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – wife has filed the detailed statement of objections and has opposed the transfer petition. It is contended that the petition has been filed to harass the respondent, that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed the petition seeking custody of minor children and the same was prosecuted before the Court at Mangaluru in G & WC No.8/2018, that the petitioner has been travelling to Mangaluru once in every week in terms of the order passed in MFA No.3481/2020 in exercise of his rights of visitation, that the respondent would not be in a position to come to Bengaluru to attend the proceedings as she is required to take care of her minor children who are aged 8 years and 6 years, that the respondent’s parents are senior citizens, that the educational interests of minor children would be affected if the respondent is required to attend the proceedings before the Court at Bengaluru, that the respondent being a Ophthalmologist by profession finds it difficult to take time off from her professional commitments and attend the proceedings at Bengaluru. (ii) It is further stated that there are pecuniary difficulties as well. Hence, it is contended that the serious hardship of the respondent needs to be taken note of and the present petition is to be dismissed. 4. Consideration:- (i) Heard learned counsel appearing for both parties. (ii) The facts are not in dispute to the effect that the petitioner is a software engineer working at Oracle India Pvt. Ltd., at Bengaluru and the respondent is a doctor pursuing her profession at Mangaluru. It also comes from the records that the parties have two minor children aged about 8 years and 6 years, both of whom are with the respondent. It is noticed from the records that visitation rights have been granted to the petitioner-husband to visit the children at the residence of respondent at Mangaluru two days in a week. (iii) It needs to be noted at the outset that the power under Section 24 of C.P.C. is to be exercised not at the mere asking of parties, but compelling grounds ought to be made out that may amount to interference in the fair trial, unless the transfer of the proceedings as sought for is not made. (iii) It needs to be noted at the outset that the power under Section 24 of C.P.C. is to be exercised not at the mere asking of parties, but compelling grounds ought to be made out that may amount to interference in the fair trial, unless the transfer of the proceedings as sought for is not made. While it is contended that the petitioner’s employment itself would be at stake, if leave is repeatedly sought for, the other inconvenience as made out is the non-availability of witnesses for trial as they are in Bengaluru and may hesitate to travel to Mangaluru. (iv) On the other hand, insofar as respondent – wife is concerned, the inconvenience on her side as putforth is that the care of her minor children in her absence would be affected, if she were to travel to Bengaluru to attend the legal proceedings. No doubt, the respondent's parents are available to look after the children when she is at work, but travelling to attend the legal proceedings in a different town would give rise to a difference scenario. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the absence while travelling will not be felt as her parents could look after her children. Her parents being senior citizens cannot be considered as a substitute for the petitioner. (v) Insofar as the contention that witnesses being present at Bengaluru, though learned counsel for the respondent contends that the primary witnesses are the children themselves, no doubt, there may be difficulty in ferrying the witnesses from Mangaluru, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in light of 'Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts' framed by this Court published in the Gazette on 09.06.2020 as and when possible, the invocation of these rules is always open to be made. (vi) As regards the respondent, travelling a distance of 360 Kms. to attend the proceedings before the Family Court would involve inconveniences and requires accompaniment by an attendant. The stress of attending the proceedings in a matrimonial dispute with minor children under the care of her parents who are senior citizens cumulatively considered are inconveniences which outweighs the inconveniences of the petitioner-husband. to attend the proceedings before the Family Court would involve inconveniences and requires accompaniment by an attendant. The stress of attending the proceedings in a matrimonial dispute with minor children under the care of her parents who are senior citizens cumulatively considered are inconveniences which outweighs the inconveniences of the petitioner-husband. (vii) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments which are dealt with as hereinbelow:- The judgment in the case of Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwindar Gurcharan Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 659 relates to a case where guidelines regarding transfer of cases under Section 24 have been discussed and it is observed that the convenience and inconvenience of the parties and the witnesses needs to be kept in mind. Similarly in the case of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, AIR 1990 SC 113 [Deleted vide Chamber order dated 26.03.2021] the Apex Court has noticed the reluctance of the witnesses to travel to Bombay. Both the decisions are relied to press home the point of inconvenience to the witnesses. However, with the recent 'Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts' framed by this Court as per the Gazette Notification in HCC No.18/2020 dated 09.06.2020, the participation of witnesses in deposing could be ensured by invocation of the said Rules and reluctance in travelling could be taken care of. (viii) Time has come when advances in technology and upgrading of the courts digital infrastructure needs to be embraced. The COVID-19 pandemic has demanded innovative responses to continue functioning in the digital mode to overcome the difficulties of physical hearing. The introduction of 'Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts' was one such initiative which has changed the manner in which courts function, and such innovation would be available even post COVID-19 pandemic for the benefit of the litigants. (ix) The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also relied on the case of Anindita Das (supra), wherein the Apex Court took note of the offer of the respondent-husband to pay expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and while noticing the availability of grand parents to look after them, the transfer petition was dismissed. However, the judgment of the Apex Court was in the context of the particular factual matrix. In fact, the Apex Court has observed as follows:- "4. However, the judgment of the Apex Court was in the context of the particular factual matrix. In fact, the Apex Court has observed as follows:- "4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit...." The change in a single relevant fact in the context of a conclusion arrived at by the court would alter the conclusion. Accordingly, if the present factual matrix is taken note of which is different from the factual matrix where the Apex Court has decided the above case, the conclusion would be different. Further, the Apex Court was dealing with a transfer petition moved by the wife, while the present petition is moved by the husband seeking transfer of a case already being tried by the court at Mangaluru which is also the residence of the wife. (x) The petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Telangana High Court in the case of Chakradharamahanthi Vekata Maikya Prasuna (supra) as regards the principle that the court is required to weigh the inconvenience caused to both the parties and if the inconvenience of one outweighs the inconvenience of the other, the court can exercise the power of withdrawal and transfer. (xi) However, while the Telangana High Court has indeed propounded a principle which takes note of one methodology which would govern the power of transfer, but beyond such evaluation of mutual inconveniences, inconveniences being comparable, the convenience of the wife would tilt in favour of exercising the power of withdrawal and transfer of proceedings for her benefit. The observations made by this court in the case of Smt.M.V.Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj (supra), ILR 2010 KAR 5407 are apt and are extracted hereinbelow: "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 behavioural 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 (See Smt.NandaKishori v. S.B.Shiua Prakash AIR 1993 Kar 87 , Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr. MANU/SC/0936/2001: AIR 2002 SC 396 and Smt.Swarna Gouri v. Sri Vinayak Pujar MANU/KA/7130/2007 : ILR 2007 Kar 4561." (xii) Other judgments relied upon by the petitioner are where the transfer petition at the instance of the wife has been rejected where travel expenses were offered to be paid by the husband. The judgments are decisions made on the facts of the respective cases. (xiii) The respondent on the other [Corrected vide chamber order dated 26.03.2021]hand has relied on judgments where transfer petitions have been allowed. However, it comes out clearly on a holistic reading of all the judgments that the exercise of the power of transfer in each case depends upon the facts that may fit into the broad guidelines as enunciated in the various judgments. (xiv) Taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt.M.V.Rekha (supra), this would be a case where convenience of wife needs to be taken note of. No doubt, the Apex Court in the case of Anindita Das (supra) has frowned upon blanket invocation of right of transfer of legal proceedings at the instance of wife and has come down heavily on the abuse of such invocation of right, however, this [Inserted vide chamber order dated 26.03.2021]is a case where the petitioner-husband is seeking for transfer of the proceedings and it is a case where inconvenience of wife in travelling to Bengaluru if proceedings were to be transferred does justify the continuance of proceedings at the Court at Mangaluru. (xv) Any litigation is bound to cause inconvenience and may even disrupt normal routine, but that by itself will not be sufficient to invoke the power of transfer which is provided to be exercised notwithstanding the jurisdictional fetters and must be invoked only as an exception to the normal rule as regarding situs of the litigation. (xv) Any litigation is bound to cause inconvenience and may even disrupt normal routine, but that by itself will not be sufficient to invoke the power of transfer which is provided to be exercised notwithstanding the jurisdictional fetters and must be invoked only as an exception to the normal rule as regarding situs of the litigation. (xvi) Taking note of the difficulties and inconveniences of the wife, it must be noted and that this is a peculiar case where both parties are well settled and respondent being a doctor, the petitioner has naturally asserted that the respondent is financially independent and is not to be treated as a dependent wife and different yardstick needs to be followed. However, it must be noted that despite societal advancement when it comes to matrimonial disputes, the psychological stress to which the woman is subjected to needs to be taken note of by way of judicial notice and must weigh and inform the exercise of the power of transfer. (xvii) It is this peculiar aspect which has weighed with the Court in the case of M.V.Rekha (supra) when it was observed "Generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be [Corrected vide chamber order dated 26.03.2021]looked at while considering transfer". In the facts of the present case clearly the inconveniences of the wife if the proceedings were to be transferred to Bengaluru outweighs the husband's inconveniences in permitting the proceedings to continue in Mangaluru. That apart clearly the conveniences of the wife would require continuance of the proceedings at the Family Court at Mangaluru. (xviii) Accordingly, the petition is rejected. However, in light of the observations made hereinabove, the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada to accommodate the reasonable requests for adjournments considering the difficulties as made out by the petitioner in the present proceedings and also to accommodate the examination of witnesses as per the 'Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts' framed by this Court.