ORDER : 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”) to withdraw FCOP No.37 of 2021 on the file of Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur at S.P.S.R. Nellore District. 2. The case of the petitioner/wife in brief is that her marriage with the respondent solemnized on 10.11.2019 in a function hall at Vijayawada city, as per Hindu customs and rites prevailing in their community. The petitioner submits that the respondent filed FCOP No.37 of 2021 under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage, dated 10.11.2019 on the ground of cruelty with all false and frivolous allegations. It is the contention of the petitioner that she also filed MC No.8 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri under Section 125 of CPC and she also filed DVC No.2 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri against the respondent and others, which is pending for adjudication. She submits that in both the cases, the respondent made his appearance, who got knowledge about pendency of those proceedings, but wantonly and deliberately filed divorce petition at Vijayawada to cause inconvenience to her. The main contention of the petitioner is that on 23.08.2022, she attended the Family Court at Vijayawada, on which date the respondent also attended the Court along with his friends and after completion of Court proceedings, when she came to main road and waiting to board a bus, wherein the respondent came, and abused her in filthy language for not giving consent for mutual consent divorce, and threatened her with dire consequences. It is also the contention of the petitioner that she has no male support and her father is working as a Teacher and used to attend his duties regularly and to attend the Court at Vijayawada, she has to alone travel 280 kms distance from her native place, from where there is no proper transport facility. She prays to transfer FCOP No.37 of 2021 on the file of Family Court, Vijayawada to Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur at S.P.S.R.Nellore District. 3. The respondent/husband filed counter, opposing the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has foisted false case by showing different addresses. She prays to transfer FCOP No.37 of 2021 on the file of Family Court, Vijayawada to Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur at S.P.S.R.Nellore District. 3. The respondent/husband filed counter, opposing the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has foisted false case by showing different addresses. He submits that himself and his parents and relatives have filed Quash petitions before this Court in a criminal case registered in FIR No.54 of 2021 of DISHA Women PS, S.P.S.R.Nellore District, which are pending. He alleged that the petitioner has intentionally filed two cases at Vijayawada Court and criminal case at Nellore, which itself shows that she is able to travel from one place to another. The respondent has stated that the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Atmakur has no jurisdiction to entertain the Family Court petitions and she has shown different addresses, though she is residing within the jurisdiction of Butchireddypalem mandal. He denied threatening petitioner. He also relied on following precedent law: 1) Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197 . 2) N.C.V.Aishwarya vs.A.S.Saravana Karthik (2022 Live Law (SC) 627) He prays to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel Ms.P.Kusuma, representing on behalf of Mr.A.SyamSundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent Mr.S.Bala Mohan Ranga. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would submit that though marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed at Vijayawada, due to the harassment of the respondent, now the petitioner is residing with her parents, and father of the petitioner is working as a Teacher, he has to regularly attend his duties, due to that he is not in a position to assist and accompany the petitioner to the Court at Vijayawada, which is at a distance of 280 kms from the present place of residence of the petitioner. She would further submit that the petitioner filed Maintenance case and DVC case against the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, wherein the respondent attended, but intentionally filed divorce petition at Family Court, Vijayawada to cause hardship to the petitioner. She prays to allow the petition and transfer the divorce petition filed by the respondent from Family Court, Vijayawada to Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Atmakur. 6. She prays to allow the petition and transfer the divorce petition filed by the respondent from Family Court, Vijayawada to Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Atmakur. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/husband vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner with an intention to harass the respondent, filed series of cases at different Courts by showing different residential addresses, which evident from the affidavit filed by the petitioner, which itself shows that she is said to be resident of Bedusupalli village, Marripadu mandal and in criminal complaint, which she lodged before DISHA Women PS, Nellore she has shown that she is a resident of Butchireddypalem mandal, which comes under the jurisdiction of DISHA Women PS Nellore city. He argued that while considering the petition for transfer of matrimonial matter, the Court has to see the convenience and inconvenience of both sides, and financial capacity of parties. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that if the petition is allowed, the respondent has to travel from Vijayawada to Atmakur, which is more than 227 kms and the journey time is more than 4 hours 30 minutes. He prays to dismiss the petition. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent though is working at Chennai, now working from home at Vijayawada, no inconvenience will be caused to him if divorce petition filed by him transferred to the Court at Atmakur. 8. In view of rival submissions, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: "Whether the petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of FCOP No.37 of 2021 from Family Court, Vijayawada to Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Atmakur, at SPSR Nellore District is maintainable either in law or on facts? If so, what Orders?" 9. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 24 of CPC, which reads as under: “24. If so, what Orders?" 9. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 24 of CPC, which reads as under: “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal:- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage- (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purpose of this section,- (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) “proceeding” includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order. (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it”. 10. Power of transfer conferred under Section 24 of CPC, can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings and suits etc. The petitions filed under the Hindu Marriage Act can be transferred, for which no consistent formula can be formulated for the exercise of powers for all the situations. It is for the Court to find out from the allegations made whether any reasonable ground is made for transfer of the case or not. The petitions filed under the Hindu Marriage Act can be transferred, for which no consistent formula can be formulated for the exercise of powers for all the situations. It is for the Court to find out from the allegations made whether any reasonable ground is made for transfer of the case or not. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam, petitioner vs. Harish Nagam, respondent in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1912 of 2014, Judgment dated 09.03.2017 after elaborately discussing the precedent law and factual circumstances in matrimonial matters observed that: “14. One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if proceedings are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by the wife. The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be appropriate that available technology of video conferencing is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties. We understand that in every district in the country video conferencing is now available. In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilized and all the High Courts ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of video conferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where one of the parties resides outside court’s jurisdiction is one of such categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a request for use of video conference, proceedings may be conducted on video conferencing, obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. In several cases, this Court has directed recording of evidence by video conferencing. 15. The other difficulty faced by the parties living beyond the local jurisdiction of the court is ignorance about availability of suitable legal services. Legal Aid Committee of every district ought to make available selected panel of advocates whose discipline and quality can be suitably regulated and who are ready to provide legal aid at a specified fee. Such panels ought to be notified on the websites of the District Legal Services Authorities/State Legal Services Authorities/National Legal Services Authority. This may enhance access to justice consistent with Article 39A of the Constitution. 16. The advancement of technology ought to be utilized also for service on parties or receiving communication from the parties. Such panels ought to be notified on the websites of the District Legal Services Authorities/State Legal Services Authorities/National Legal Services Authority. This may enhance access to justice consistent with Article 39A of the Constitution. 16. The advancement of technology ought to be utilized also for service on parties or receiving communication from the parties. Every district court must have at least one e-mail ID. Administrative instructions for directions can be issued to permit the litigants to access the court, especially when litigant is located outside the local jurisdiction of the Court. A designated officer/manager of a district court may suitably respond to such e-mail in the manner permitted as per the administrative instructions. Similarly, a manager/ information officer in every district court may be accessible on a notified telephone during notified hours as per the instructions. These steps may, to some extent, take care of the problems of the litigants. These suggestions may need attention of the High Courts. 17. We are thus of the view that it is necessary to issue certain directions which may provide alternative to seeking transfer of proceedings on account of inability of a party to contest proceedings at a place away from their ordinary residence on the ground that if proceedings are not transferred it will result in denial of justice. 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. The safeguards can be:- i) Availability of video conferencing 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 out station may communicate. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya case referred supra relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent held at paras 9 and 10, which reads as under: “9. 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 out station may communicate. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya case referred supra relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent held at paras 9 and 10, which reads as under: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should 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 both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. 10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases 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”. 12. It is consistent view of Hon’ble Apex Court that in matrimonial proceedings, where transfer is sought for, convenience of wife has to be taken into consideration. But at the same time, hardship which the husband may face if the case is transferred has to be taken into consideration and just orders have to be passed by the Court, when the transfer petitions are filed. 13. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has lodged a report before the DISHA Women PS at Nellore city by showing her residential address that she is residing at Butchireddypalem village and mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The petitioner also filed MC No.8 of 2021 and DVC No.2 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, wherein she has mentioned her residential address as Bedusupalli village, Marripadu mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The petitioner also filed MC No.8 of 2021 and DVC No.2 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, wherein she has mentioned her residential address as Bedusupalli village, Marripadu mandal, SPSR Nellore District. It is not in dispute that the respondent/husband is working as Senior Software Engineer at Chennai, but presently he is working from home at Vijayawada city. It is not the contention of the respondent/husband that the petitioner/wife got independent source of income and she is not employed. The petitioner who lodged report before the DISHA Women PS at Nellore has to attend the Court at Nellore to prosecute her case and the respondent also shall attend the Courts at Udayagiri and also at Nellore to defend his cases. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the respondent is also working as Senior Software Engineer at Chennai, though presently working from home at Vijayawada and after considering the financial status of both parties and also considering the convenience and inconvenience of both sides, this Court deems it fit to transfer FCOP No.37 of 2021 on the file of Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore City. The Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada shall transmit the entire records in FCOP No.37 of 2021 to the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore City after duly indexed as expeditiously as possible. On receiving the records by the Family Court at Nellore, which shall be re-registered and the petition filed by the respondent/husband against the petitioner/wife shall be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, within Six (6) months from the date of receipt of records from the Family Court at Vijayawada. Both the parties shall appear before the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore, on 11.03.2023 at 10.30 a.m. The learned counsel representing both the parties are requested to intimate the parties to attend before the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore on 11.03.2023. 14. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed in part. The FCOP No.37 of 2021 on the file of Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is transferred to the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore City. The Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada shall transmit the entire records in FCOP No.37 of 2021 to the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore City after duly indexed as expeditiously as possible. The FCOP No.37 of 2021 on the file of Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is transferred to the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore City. The Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada shall transmit the entire records in FCOP No.37 of 2021 to the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore City after duly indexed as expeditiously as possible. On receiving the records by the Family Court at Nellore, which shall be re-registered and the petition filed by the respondent/husband against the petitioner/wife shall be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, within Six (6) months from the date of receipt of records from the Family Court at Vijayawada. Both the parties shall appear before the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore, on 11.03.2023 at 10.30 a.m. The learned counsel representing both the parties are requested to intimate the parties to attend before the Family Court at S.P.S.R.Nellore on 11.03.2023. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay granted if any, shall stand vacated.