ORDER : These Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed by the same parties, can be disposed of by a Common Order 2. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.416 of 2022 is filed by the wife against the husband, seeking transfer of FCOP No.431 of 2022 from the Family Court at Guntur to the Family Court at Visakhapatnam. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.33 of 2023 is filed by the husband against the wife, seeking transfer of FCOP No.1788 of 2022 from the Family Court at Visakhapatnam to the Family Court at Guntur. 3. It is admitted fact that the marriage between the parties solemnized on 21.02.2022 in a Church at Guntur city, as per customs prevailing in Christian community. It is also not in dispute that the husband is working as Assistant Professor in CSE Department, NIT, Warangal, and after the marriage the wife joined the husband and resided at Guntur for some time, and thereafter she also resided in NIT quarters at Warangal city. It is alleged by the wife that, she has been ill-treated by her in-laws by treating her as maid-servant, and taken her for medical check-up on the ground that she is suffering from ill-health and forced her to have a child and abused her that she is un-healthy person, not fit to conceive. The wife alleged that the husband is puppet in the hands of his parents, and he never stopped harassing her, and filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights with false grounds, and she also filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Vizag and issued notice in FCOP No.431 of 2022. It is the contention of the wife that the husband instead of filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Vizag, to harass her and force her to bring to his terms, as she cannot afford to visit Court at Guntur due to financial issues and dependency on her father, filed petition at Guntur. 4. Whereas, the husband has contended that after he filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights, wife received notice and remained ex-parte, and filed petition to set aside the ex-parte Orders and filed FCOP No.1788 of 2022 before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam for the same relief. 4. Whereas, the husband has contended that after he filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights, wife received notice and remained ex-parte, and filed petition to set aside the ex-parte Orders and filed FCOP No.1788 of 2022 before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam for the same relief. It is also the contention of the husband that the father of the wife is working as ASI of police, who threatened him many times and also his father, due to that he has got threat to his life whenever he visits the Court at Vizag. 5. I have heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel, representing the petitioner/ wife would submit that since the date of marriage, the husband along with his parents abused the wife and illtreated her on the ground that she is un-healthy person, not fit to procure the children. He would further submit that the distance between Visakhapatnam to Guntur is 400 kms. He would further submit that the petitioner being a woman, having no male support and also due to financial constrains, she cannot travel from Visakhapatnam to Guntur to attend the Court. He prays to allow the transfer petition filed by the wife, and dismiss the transfer petition filed by the husband. 7. The learned counsel, representing the respondent/ husband would submit that the father of the wife is working as ASI of police at Gajuwaka police station of Visakhapatnam, due to that he along with unruly elements visited the house of the father of the husband and threatened him, due to that he also lodged a report, and the father of the wife made threatening calls to the husband, who lodged a report before the Superintendent of Police. He prays to allow the petition filed by the husband and dismiss the petition filed by the wife. 8. Now the point that emerges for consideration by this Court is:- "Whether there are any grounds to consider the petitions filed by the wife and the husband to transfer the cases, filed by them against each other?" 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. 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. It is no doubt true that it is consistent view of 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 it has to be considered whether the contention of wife or the husband, seeking transfer on the grounds mentioned in their petitions are tenable, and acceptable and we have to balance the convenience and inconvenience of the wife and also husband. 11. 11. 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 held at paras 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. In the present case also admittedly, the marriage between the parties solemnized in a Church at Guntur. It is not in dispute that the parents of the husband are residing at Guntur, who are retired Principals of college, whereas the husband is residing in NIT quarters at Warangal. It is not in dispute that the father of wife is working as ASI of police at Gajuwaka police station, who alleged to have threatened the parents of the husband, and also husband, for which they lodged a report. It is not in dispute that the father of wife is working as ASI of police at Gajuwaka police station, who alleged to have threatened the parents of the husband, and also husband, for which they lodged a report. The fact remains is that the petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights is prior to the petition filed by the wife for the same relief before the Family Court at Vizag. Both parties have filed petitions for similar relief, i.e., restitution of conjugal rights, which shows that both are interested to lead marital life. The only difficulty which the wife expressed, is that it is difficult for her to travel from Visakhapatnam to Guntur to attend the Court due to financial constrains, and she also alleged that her in-laws abused her when she was residing at Guntur. Admittedly, the husband is now working at Warangal, due to that the apprehension of the wife that she may be subjected to abuses by husband if she attends the Court, may not be correct. At the same time, it has to be taken into consideration that the wife is not employed anywhere, and she is only house-maker. The learned counsel for the husband fairly submitted that the husband is ready to pay the travel and other expenses of the wife whenever she visits the Court at Guntur. 13. After considering the convenience and inconvenience of both parties, and also considering the fact that the father of the wife is working as Police Officer at Visakhapatnam, it is not desirable to consider the request of the wife to transfer the restitution of conjugal rights petition, filed by the husband to the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, as husband already filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife before the Family Court at Guntur. Hence, it is desirable to transfer the petition filed for similar relief by the wife from the Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Family Court, Guntur. The husband shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the wife whenever she visits the Family Court at Guntur in the presence of Judge, Family Court, Guntur towards her travelling and other expenses. 14. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.416 of 2022 filed by wife is hereby dismissed. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.33 of 2023 filed by husband is hereby allowed. 14. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.416 of 2022 filed by wife is hereby dismissed. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.33 of 2023 filed by husband is hereby allowed. The FCOP No.1788 of 2022 on the file of Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Guntur. The Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the entire case records in FCOP.No.1788 of 2022 after duly indexed to the Judge, Family Court, Guntur as expeditiously as possible within Two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of Orders of this Court in the present petition. On receipt of records, the Judge, Family Court, Guntur shall club both the petitions in FCOP No.1788 of 2022 and FCOP No.431 of 2022 and record common evidence and dispose of both the cases. The Judge, Family Court, Guntur is also directed not to insist physical presence of the wife, who is respondent in FCOP No.431 of 2022 and petitioner in FCOP No.1788 of 2022 for each and every adjournment, when she engages an Advocate and her presence can be insisted whenever required during the course of enquiry and at the time of recording her evidence. The Judge, Family Court, Guntur is also directed to explore possibility of amicable settlement of disputes between the parties by conducting conciliation as per procedure laid down under law. The Judge, Family Court, Guntur shall also use facility of video conferencing while conducting enquiry as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam case referred supra, if both parties agree for the same. With the above said directions, both petitions have disposed of as referred supra. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay granted if any, shall stand vacated.