ORDER : This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife against respondent/husband under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.988 of 2021 from Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, to Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 2. The case of the petitioner/wife in brief is that her marriage with the respondent solemnized on 17.02.2016 at Vijayawada as per caste, custom prevailing in their community. She submits that sometime after the marriage disturbances arose in their matrimonial life due to the behaviour of the respondent and thereafter exchange of notices taken place between the parties and then respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.988 of 2021 before the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking divorce. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that her father is away from India and she and her mother are staying at Visakhapatnam and she has to look after her mother and they have no male assistance. The petitioner submits that due to disturbances in her family life, she could not able to continue her profession and facing financial trouble, due to that, it is difficult for her to travel from Visakhapatnam to Vijayawada to attend the Court as distance is about 400 Kilometres and she prays to transfer F.C.O.P.No.988 of 2021 from Principal Family Court, Vijayawada to Family Court at Visakhapatnam. 4. The respondent/husband filed counter denying averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that he filed divorce petition against the petitioner before the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada and now he is prosecuting further studies for Master of Public Health (MPH) Super Speciality Course in Neurosurgery at Tirupathi Town for the last four years and residing at Tirupathi, where his presence is required as per bond regulations. He submits that he is also facing much difficulty in attending the Court at Vijayawada, but for the convenience of both the parties, he filed petition before the Principal Family Court at Vijayawada, where the marriage also taken place. It is also the contention of the respondent that as per ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam v/s Harish Nagam, (2017) AIR (SCW) 1345 case, Court has to look into the problems of husband also when considering the petition under Section 24 of CPC. He prays to dismiss the petition. 5. It is also the contention of the respondent that as per ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam v/s Harish Nagam, (2017) AIR (SCW) 1345 case, Court has to look into the problems of husband also when considering the petition under Section 24 of CPC. He prays to dismiss the petition. 5. I have heard Mr.S.Siva Nagarjuna, learned counsel representing on behalf of T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.Syamsunder Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Both the counsels have fairly contended that, it is difficult for both the parties to prosecute their case at Vijayawada, as now, petitioner is staying at Visakhapatnam whereas the respondent is prosecuting further studies at Tirupathi, where his presence is compulsorily required as per bond executed by him. They pray to pass an order as per guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam case referred supra. 7. In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is whether F.C.O.P.No.988 of 2021 can be transferred from Principal Family Court, Vijayawada to Family Court, Visakhapatnam, or to pass any other orders? 8. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to scope of Section 24 of CPC which reads as under:- “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 purposes 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.” 9. It is no doubt true that, it is consistent view of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts in India that in respect of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of wife has to be considered, but, at the same time the inconvenience of husband has to be taken into consideration. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam case referred supra held at para Nos.14 to 18 which reads as under:- “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. 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 State of Maharashtra etc.v.Dr.Praful B.Desai etc., (2003) 4 SCC 601 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and anr. (2005) 3 SCC 284 ; Budhadev Karmaskar (4) v.State of West Bengal, (2011) 10 SCC 283 ; Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2011) 15 SCC 330 .. 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. 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. 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.” 10. In the present case, the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband from Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, to Family Court, Visakhapatnam, on the ground that, due to disturbances in the family, she could not continue her medical profession and her father is in abroad, due to that, she has to look after her mother and facing financial trouble. It is admitted fact that now respondent/husband also prosecuting his studies at Tirupathi, which is more than 500 Kilometres from Vijayawada City. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam case gave a direction that in matrimonial matters, whenever parties are located outside the jurisdiction of the Court, where proceedings are instituted, Courts may examine in the interest of justice, conducting the trial through video conferencing facility. 11. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam case gave a direction that in matrimonial matters, whenever parties are located outside the jurisdiction of the Court, where proceedings are instituted, Courts may examine in the interest of justice, conducting the trial through video conferencing facility. 11. The learned counsel for respondent would submit that in new Court buildings constructed at Vijayawada city, video conferencing facility is available to proceed with the trial of the case without delay, which can be convenient to both the parties. 12. After considering the admitted fact that, now the petitioner is staying at Visakhapatnam whereas the respondent is staying at Tirupathi and now a petition is pending before the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, as video conferencing facility is available at Vijayawada Courts, it is desirable to conduct the trial of the case in F.C.O.P.No.988 of 2021 by the learned Judge of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, through video conference as per the guidelines issued by this Court and also by following due procedure laid down under law, in respect of recording the evidence through video conferencing. It is also made clear that whenever the personal attendance of parties are required by the Court, they shall appear before the Court and the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, shall post the case any Second Saturday or Sunday of the month for the physical appearance of the parties. The learned Judge of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, is also directed to explore possibility of amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties by conducting the conciliation through video conference maintaining the privacy of the proceedings. 13. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of directing the learned Judge Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, to conduct the case through video conference using video conferencing facility without insisting physical presence of the parties before the Court. It is also made clear that whenever the personal attendance of parties are required by the Court, they shall appear before the Court and the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, shall post the case any Second Saturday or Sunday of the month for the physical appearance of the parties. The learned Judge of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, is also directed to explore possibility of amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties by conducting the conciliation through video conference maintaining the privacy of the proceedings. 14. The learned Judge of Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, is also directed to explore possibility of amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties by conducting the conciliation through video conference maintaining the privacy of the proceedings. 14. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated.