JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2022, on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, with a prayer to transfer the said H.M.O.P. to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. 2. The facts which lead to the filing of this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, in brief, are that the respondent is the husband of the petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 24.04.2016 at Gollaprolu Village, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a female child on 13.07.2017 by name Sudheeksha, aged four years. After the marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent at Konanki Village of Martur Mandal. But, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment to bring additional dowry. The mediations that were held to resolve the issue proved to be futile. Hence, on 07.08.2022 the petitioner filed a report before Gollaprolu Police Station, which is the subject matter in F.I.R. No.126 of 2002 under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Respondent filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2002 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, with all false and baseless allegations. The petitioner is contesting the same. On account of nature of the job of the petitioner, she is not able to attend the Court at Addanki. The distance between Addanki and Gollaprolu is 350 K.Ms. The petitioner being a woman and having a kid of four years old cannot go to Addanki on her own without any assistance. Petitioner is working as Mahila Police in Grama Sachivalayam at Gollaprolu since 2019. It would be convenient for the petitioner to defend the proceedings at Pithapuram, which is a distance of 10 K.Ms. from Gollaprolu. Hence, the petition. 3. The respondent got filed a counter denying the allegations against him and resisting the prayer of the petitioner. His contention in substance is that there is no dispute about his marriage with the respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. They were blessed with a child on 13.07.2017. The allegations attributed against the respondent for demand of dowry and harassment are all false. Petitioner never lived at her matrimonial home at Konanki Village. She did not show any love and affection towards her in-laws. They were blessed with a child on 13.07.2017. The allegations attributed against the respondent for demand of dowry and harassment are all false. Petitioner never lived at her matrimonial home at Konanki Village. She did not show any love and affection towards her in-laws. Respondent is working as a private employee in Hyderabad. Petitioner could live with the respondent at Hyderabad for only few months and harassed him mentally. Later, she left Hyderabad along with her child including household articles and started living with her parents. The mediations held by him proved to be futile. Hence, he filed H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2022 before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Addanki. Petitioner is drawing more than Rs.25,000/- per month. Her brother is A.C.T.O., who is assisting her. The respondent is at Hyderabad. The distance from Hyderabad to Pithapuram is more than 400 K.Ms. and he cannot undertake such a long distance, as such, petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Now in deciding the petition, the point that arises for consideration is whether the H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2022 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki is liable to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District? Point:- 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend according to the averments in the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend according to the counter. 7. During reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the decision in V. Sailaja vs. V. Koteswara Rao AIR 2003 AP 178 . 8. As seen from the copy of H.M.O.P., the respondent herein in the capacity of the petitioner shown his address as at Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasm District. Admittedly, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, in view of Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, where a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act can be presented at a place (1) where the marriage was solemnized or (2) the respondent at the time of presentation of the petition resides or (3) parties to the marriage lastly resided together or (4) in case, the wife is the petitioner where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition. 9. The contention of the respondent before the Court below is that he and the respondent lastly resided together at Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. 9. The contention of the respondent before the Court below is that he and the respondent lastly resided together at Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. At the same time, one cannot lost sight of the fact that even the case like H.M.O.P. filed by the respondent can also be filed at a place where at present the petitioner is residing. This Court has gone through the decision in V. Sailaja's case (1 supra) wherein the composite High Court of Hyderabad held that the High Court has got unquestionable power to transfer cases from one place to another under Section 24 of the Act and in matrimonial proceedings the convenience of the wife can be looked into in view of law laid down in Rachna Kanodia vs. Anuk Kanodia 2001 (7) Supreme 96 and Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and others AIR 2002 SC 396 . 10. This Court has looked into the above said decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Rachna Kanodia's case (2 supra), the facts were that considering the convenience of the wife and issue of the marriage, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the relief of transfer to the place where the wife was staying. Similar is the situation in respect of Sumitha Singh's case (3 supra). Admittedly, the convenience of the wife in matrimonial proceedings is a question of fact which is to be looked into summarily while deciding an application of this nature. Though the respondent herein shown his address as at Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, but, in the counter-affidavit, he admitted the fact that he is residing at Hyderabad on private employment. So, virtually, the address of the respondent which is shown in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is admitted by the respondent in his counter-affidavit. So, the fact remained is that whether the proceedings are at before the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki or even in the event of transfer at Pithapuram Court, the respondent has to undertake a journey to travel to 300 K.Ms. or 400 K.Ms. as the case may be. It is not as though the respondent is residing as of now in Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. So, necessarily he has to travel long distance irrespective of as to whether the case is on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki or on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, in the event of transfer. 11. It is not as though the respondent is residing as of now in Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. So, necessarily he has to travel long distance irrespective of as to whether the case is on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki or on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, in the event of transfer. 11. Now turning to the objection raised by the respondent in the counter, he did not express anything that if the case is transferred to Pithapuram, any injustice will be done to him and he never expressed any apprehension in the hands of the petitioner. So, the only thing which he pleaded is that as the petitioner is hale and healthy and has considerable income, she can travel to Addanki and as the distance is more than 400 K.Ms., it is not possible for him to go to Pithapuram. In matrimonial proceedings the presence of the parties is not necessary on each and every adjournment. Their presence is required only at the time of counseling and at the time of evidence. There is no dispute that petitioner has a kid of four years old. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent did not make out any case much less tenable case to deny the relief that is prayed by the petitioner. 13. Having regard to the observations made by the composite High Court at Hyderabad in the above referred decision and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and having looked into the cause set up by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that it is necessary for the convenience of the petitioner herein and her female child to grant the relief. 14. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed withdrawing H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2022 from the file of Senior Civil Judge at Addanki and transferring the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, for disposal, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.