ORDER : This petition, invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is filed seeking transfer of FCOP No.149/2019 from the file of I Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the reasons stated for seeking transfer was that the petitioner doesn’t not have any independent source of income; she is dependent on her parents who are poor; she can’t bear the travel expenditure to attend the Court at Siddipet which is about hundred kilometers away from her present residence at Hyderabad; and she is not getting any maintenance. 3. Notice was sent to the respondent. The petitioner’s counsel Mr. P. Narasimha was permitted to take out personal notice on the respondent and the notice was served, and proof of service was filed vide USR No.25177 of 2021. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent. 4. Considering a large number of transfer petitions being filed before this Court day in and day out, and considering the enormous work involved in administration and logistics in transferring the cases from one Court to another, this Court called for information with respect to the pending transfer petitions before this Court. As per the information available, there are about 400 plus transfer petitions pending before this Court seeking transfer of the cases filed under the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the importance of the matter, this Court invited suggestions from the Members of the Bar seeking assistance/suggestions. 6. In response, Smt. Vasudha Nagaraj, amicus curiae, submitted detailed note and suggestions, and Ms.Shravani, Law Clerk attached to this Court, submitted the relevant judgments after research. 7. The detailed note submitted by Smt. Vasudha Nagaraj includes the suggestions with respect to divorce and custody of children cases. As we are concerned with only transfer of cases pending before one court to another court, the suggestions relevant are set out below. “It is submitted that Transfer Petitions are generally filed by the wife on the following grounds: 1. That she is unemployed 2. That she is having minor children whom she cannot leave behind; 3. That neither she nor her children are being paid maintenance by the husband and that she is finding it difficult to commute; 4. “It is submitted that Transfer Petitions are generally filed by the wife on the following grounds: 1. That she is unemployed 2. That she is having minor children whom she cannot leave behind; 3. That neither she nor her children are being paid maintenance by the husband and that she is finding it difficult to commute; 4. That she apprehends danger to her life if she attends Court where her husband has filed the cases. 5. That the distance between the Court where the Petition is filed and the Court where it is sought to be transferred requires an overnight journey and hotel accommodation. 6. That there are already pending cases field u/s S 498A, Complaints under S 125 CrPC, GWOP Act or that of the DVC Act, 2005 in the jurisdiction where the wife is residing. Transfer Petitions are filed by husbands on the grounds that 1. The wife and her family are influential people 2. The wife and her family wield considerable influence in the judiciary 3. He is suffering ill health In matrimonial cases, the predominant principle has been the supportive approach to the travails of the wife who has to attend proceedings in a distant court. The following parameters have guided the decisions of the apex court in transferring cases. 1. If the place where the wife is residing is already invested with jurisdiction as per the matrimonial laws. (generally the place of solemnization of marriage). 2. If the wife has filed for a Counter claim or another matrimonial petition such as that of Restitution of Conjugal Rights or Judicial Separation, it is imperative that both the cases be heard together. 3. Where the husband has not disputed the wife’s status of being unemployed, or of not being financially maintained by him. 4. Where the criminal complaint lodged by the wife reveals physical violence, fear of losing life and limb, threats by husband and his relatives, records of medical treatment for injuries. 5. Where the children are of tender age and the custody of the children are with the wife. In the alternative, the apex court instead of transferring, has laid down the following conditions. Krishna Veni Nagam vs Harish Nagam reported in (2017) 4 SCC 150 . 1. That the husband should pay travel, lodging and boarding expenses for the wife and the Attender who is accompanying her. In the alternative, the apex court instead of transferring, has laid down the following conditions. Krishna Veni Nagam vs Harish Nagam reported in (2017) 4 SCC 150 . 1. That the husband should pay travel, lodging and boarding expenses for the wife and the Attender who is accompanying her. Depending on the financial status of the husband, the travel expenses will be accordingly fixed in terms of the mode of transport. 2. Where there is video conferencing facility, the same may be availed by the wife. 3. That the wife has to attend court physically only for reconciliation sessions and recording of evidence of herself and her witnesses.” 8. Ms. Shravani, Law Clerk, submitted the following judgments as relevant for the matter in issue. 1. Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150 (DB, March 2017) 2. Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh, (2018) 1 SCC 1 (3-judge Bench, October 2017, Majority opinion by CJI Sri Dipak Misra, with Dissent by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) 3. Shruti Kaushal Bisht v. Kaushal R. Bisht, (2020) 10 SCC 725 (Single Judge, November 2020) 4. Neetu Yadav v. Sachin Yadav, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 792 (DB, September, 2020) 9. In the present case, it may be noted that we are concerned only with respect to transferring of petitions filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and not the petitions filed invoking Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act. 10. A petition seeking resolution of disputes arising under Hindu Marriage Act are required to be filed under Section 19 of the Act. 10. A petition seeking resolution of disputes arising under Hindu Marriage Act are required to be filed under Section 19 of the Act. Analysis of Section 19 discloses that every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, (i) the marriage was solemnised, or (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or (iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or (iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive. Section 21A of the Act provides for transferring of certain petitions falling within its scope. 11. A close scrutiny of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court referred to supra, and the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Arjun Singhal v. Pushpa Karwal, AIR 2003 MP 189 , would disclose that the matrimonial disputes could be filed within the jurisdiction of the Courts as delineated under Section 19 of the Act. On analysis of the provisions of the Act, and precedents on the issue, this Court finds that in Krishna Veni Nagam (supra), while issuing general directions in para 18, the Apex Court appears to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 25 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is evident from the observations in Para 19 of the judgment, which reads as under: “18. We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be: (i) Availability of videoconferencing facility. (ii) Availability of legal aid service. (iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV CPC. (iv) E-mail address / phone number, if any, at which litigant from outstation may communicate. 19. We hope the above arrangement may, to an extent, reduce hardship to the litigants as noted above in the order of this Court dated 9-1-2017. However, in the present case since the matter is pending in this Court for about three years, we are satisfied that the prayer for transfer may be allowed. (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, we direct that proceedings in Case No.179A of 2013 under Section 13 of the Act titled Harish Nagam v. Krishna Veni Nagam pending on the file of IInd Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. If the parties seek mediation, the transferee court may explore the possibility of an amicable settlement through mediation. It will be open to the transferee court to conduct the proceedings or record evidence of the witnesses who are unable to appear in court by way of videoconferencing. Records shall be sent by court where proceedings are pending to the transferee court forthwith.” 12. It may be noted that in Krishna Veni Nagam (supra), the transfer of the case was sought from a Court which is within the territorial jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh High Court to a Court within the jurisdiction of High Court of Andhra Pradesh (as it then existed). 13. However, the observations made in paragraphs 14 and 17 of Krishna Veni Nagam (supra) judgment give an indication that as a general principle the Court was not inclined to transfer cases merely considering the convenience of the woman (wife). This is also in line with the judgments of Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank, and Mahavir Prasad cases referred to in subsequent paragraphs. This judgment was once again considered by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Santhini (supra), wherein it was summed up in paragraph 58 as under: “58. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we sum up our conclusion as follows:- 58.1 In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in particular Section 11, the hearing of matrimonial disputes may have to be conducted in camera. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we sum up our conclusion as follows:- 58.1 In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in particular Section 11, the hearing of matrimonial disputes may have to be conducted in camera. 58.2 After the settlement fails and when a joint application is filed or both the parties file their respective consent memorandum for hearing of the case through videoconferencing before the concerned Family Court, it may exercise the discretion to allow the said prayer. 58.3 After the settlement fails, if the Family Court feels it appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that videoconferencing will sub-serve the cause of justice, it may so direct. 58.4 In a transfer petition, video conferencing cannot be directed. 58.5 Our directions shall apply prospectively. 58.6 The decision in Krishna Veni Nagam (supra) is overruled to the aforesaid extent. 14. It may be noted that the above quoted portion is the majority view by Hon’ble Chief Justice Dipak Misra, while the minority view was by Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Y.Chandrachud. It may be noted that the difference of opinion was only with respect to whether videoconferencing can be permitted in matrimonial cases. It may also be noted that the 3 judge bench in Santhini (supra) did not dissent or strike a different note. In other words, ultimately, it can be safely said that in normal circumstances the cases filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are required to be tried by the competent Family Courts established under Family Courts Act, 1984, within the jurisdiction as set out under Section 19 and Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The later judgments of the Supreme Court in Neetu Yadav (supra), though had allowed transfer of the cases filed by the wife treating the wife’s convenience as paramount, they are required to be considered not as declaration of law but the orders passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, exercising their prerogative in the interests of justice in the peculiar facts of those cases in view of the larger Bench judgment in Santhini (supra). 15. 15. In a large number of cases the petitions filed under Section 13 either by wife or husband, and mostly by wife, are sought to be transferred by filing transfer petitions before this court, seeking transfer of the OPs to the courts, even where no cause of action has arisen, to suit the convenience of the party and the courts not having jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 19/21A of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955. The law, as it stands today, does not permit this Court to exercise the inherent powers to transfer ignoring the provisions of Section 19/21A, and disregarding to the disruption of the Court and Case Management issues burdening one court or the other. 16. It may also be noted that even under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that (i) mere fact that the opposite party is a man of influence in the locality [Subramania Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, (1990) 1 SCC 4 , Maneka Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 4 SCC 167 ]; (ii) mere fact that the Court is situated at a long distance from the place of residence of the applicant [Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, (1962) SC 527]; mere balance of convenience to the applicant [Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Company, (1979) 4 SCC 358 , Mahavir Prasad v. Jacks Aviation, (1999) 2 SCC 37 (at page 44)]. 17. In the light of the above, in the present case, admittedly, the Court at Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet, having jurisdiction to try the case, the learned Senior Civil Judge shall follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santhini (supra), and in Krishna Veni Nagam (supra). For brevity sake, the guidelines are broadly set out hereunder: (1) That the husband should pay travel, lodging and boarding expenses for the wife and the attender who is accompanying her. Depending on the financial status of the husband, the travel expenses will be accordingly fixed in terms of the mode of transport. (2) That the wife has to attend court physically only for reconciliation sessions and recording of evidence of herself and her witnesses. (3) In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in particular Section 11, the hearing of matrimonial disputes may have to be conducted in camera. (2) That the wife has to attend court physically only for reconciliation sessions and recording of evidence of herself and her witnesses. (3) In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in particular Section 11, the hearing of matrimonial disputes may have to be conducted in camera. (4) After the settlement fails and when a joint application is filed or both the parties file their respective consent memorandum for hearing of the case through video conferencing before the concerned Family court, it may exercise the discretion to allow the said prayer. (5) After the settlement fails, if the family court feels it appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that video conferencing will sub-serve the cause of justice it may so direct. 18. As a matter of practice the Courts are required to follow the guidelines set out in the above judgments in normal circumstances while adjudicating the matrimonial disputes. 19. Subject to the above directions, the transfer petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand disposed of. 20. I place on record the commendable efforts of Smt. Vasudha Nagaraj, amicus curiae, and Ms. Shravani, Law Clerk attached to this Court, in assisting the Court with relevant case laws.