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”), seeking transfer of FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 from the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili of Vizianagaram District. 2. The case of the petitioner/wife in brief is that her marriage with the respondent solemnized on 09.04.2010, as per the Hindu rites, and caste customs, prevailing in their community at Gajuwaka of Visakhapatnam city. The petitioner alleged that on demand of the respondent, her parents have presented cash and gold towards dowry to the respondent, and after the marriage she joined the respondent at Gajuwaka, which is her in-laws house. The petitioner submits that one week after the marriage, the respondent got employment at Hyderabad and left the petitioner in her in-laws house at Gajuwaka and went to Hyderabad to attend his job, and after intervention of the elders, the petitioner was taken to Hyderabad by the respondent, where they both stayed at respondent brother’s house, which said to be questioned by the petitioner, and then the respondent alleged to have beat her. The petitioner alleged that the respondent addicted to drinking alcohol, and used to harass her, due to unbearable harassment of the respondent, on 03.01.2014 she went to her parents’ house at Bobbili town. The petitioner submits that she has got child, aged 9 years, now herself and her child are staying at her parents’ house at Bobbili of Vizianagaram District, where she lodged a report against the respondent, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is registered as CC No. 211 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili. The petitioner also filed MC No. 7 of 2015 and DVC No. 25 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili against the respondent and his family members, which is said to be pending. The main contention of the petitioner is that as she filed maintenance case, domestic violence case, and lodged criminal complaint against the respondent, the respondent has filed FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam for dissolution of marriage, by decree of divorce, wherein she received notice. The main contention of the petitioner is that as she filed maintenance case, domestic violence case, and lodged criminal complaint against the respondent, the respondent has filed FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam for dissolution of marriage, by decree of divorce, wherein she received notice. It is also the contention of the petitioner that now she is depending upon her parents, living at the mercy of her parents in Bobbili town of Vizianagaram District along with her child, aged 9 years, due to that it is very difficult for her to attend the Court at Visakhapatnam on every date of hearing, which is 120 kms from Bobbili town. She prays to transfer FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 from the Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bobbili. 3. Notice sent to the respondent served to his father, as per postal acknowledgment received by the Registry, but he has not chosen to contest the case by filing counter-affidavit, denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel Ms. T. Sowmya Naidu, for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court has got ample power under Section 24 of CPC to transfer any case from the Family Court to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, having jurisdiction to try and dispose of the divorce petitions. She would further submit that petitions filed by the petitioner, seeking maintenance and also claiming compensation for damages, already allowed by the Court, but the respondent has not paid any amount to the petitioner towards maintenance, though he contested those cases by attending the Court at Bobbili town. She relied on the ratio laid down of this Court in Kaligithi Priyanka vs. Javudula Rajeev Gandhi in Tr. CMP No. 58 of 2019, dated 18.12.2019. She prays to allow the petition. 6. Now the point that emerges for consideration by this Court is: “Whether the petition is maintainable either in law or on facts?” 7. POINT: It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 09.04.2010 at Gajuwaka of Visakhapatnam District. Now, the petitioner along with her minor child, aged 9 years is residing at Bobbili town of Vizianagaram District, which is 120 kms away from Visakhapatnam, where the respondent filed FCOP No. 1126 of 2021, seeking divorce. POINT: It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 09.04.2010 at Gajuwaka of Visakhapatnam District. Now, the petitioner along with her minor child, aged 9 years is residing at Bobbili town of Vizianagaram District, which is 120 kms away from Visakhapatnam, where the respondent filed FCOP No. 1126 of 2021, seeking divorce. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed MC No. 7 of 2015, DVC No. 25 of 2015 and lodged a report before the Station House Officer, Bobbili police station, who registered the case against the respondent, and after due investigation filed charge sheet which registered as CC No. 211 of 2015, which is said to be pending. 8. As per the contention of the petitioner in her affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that MC No. 7 of 2015 and DVC No. 25 of 2015 though contested by the respondent allowed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili granting maintenance and compensation to the petitioner, payable by the respondent. Admittedly, the said two cases contested by the respondent by engaging an Advocate, on perusal of copy of Orders passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili in those cases furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In CC No. 211 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, the respondent is shown as one of the accused who has to attend the Court at Bobbili town. 9. When this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether it is permissible to transfer divorce petition filed before the Family Court, presided by the Officer in the cadre of District Judge can be transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, which is lower in the cadre, for which, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the ratio laid down of this Court in Kaligithi Priyanka case referred supra, wherein the learned Single Judge, after elaborately discussing the ratio laid down by this Court in V. Sailaja vs. V. Koteswara Rao, 2003 (1) ALD 673 and also after relying on the ratio laid down in P. Jayalakshmi vs. K. Revichandran, AIR 1992 A.P. 190 held that divorce petition pending before the Family Court can be transferred to the Senior Civil Judge having jurisdiction to dispose of the divorce petitions. Now, it would be beneficial to quote Paras 10 to 13 of the Judgment, which reads as under: “10. However, it appears that earlier ruling of this Court when at Hyderabad in V. Sailaja vs. V. Koteswara Rao, in the same context, was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. This ruling, in turn, relied on earlier decision of this court in P. Jayalakshmi vs. K. Revichandran. There is also elaborate discussion in Sailaja’s case, referred to supra, in respect of jurisdiction of family Court vis-à-vis a Court of ordinary civil Jurisdiction, conferred with jurisdiction to decide the matrimonial matters. It is desirable to extract hereunder the relevant observations in Sailaja’s case, for benefit, in Paras-13 to 16: “13. On a plain reading of the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, it is clear that in respect of the matters which are enumerated in the Explanation to Section 7, the Family Court shall exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court. The Family Court shall also exercise the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of I Class in respect of a proceeding for maintenance filed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While so, Section 8 of the Act excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts/Magistrates of I Class in such of the Districts where Family Courts are constituted under the Family Courts Act. 14. On a careful reading of the language used in Section 8, I am of the opinion that the exclusion contemplated under Section 8 of the Act is only limited to the Districts where a Family Court is already constituted under the Family Courts Act, in which case, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in such Districts in respect of the matters which are mentioned in the Explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act gets ousted. But, in places where Family Court is not constituted, then the said exclusion contemplated under Section 8 is not applicable to the Civil Courts which are functioning in such places. In such cases, the local Civil Courts will continue to exercise the jurisdiction in respect of all matrimonial matters. 15. Coming to the power of the High Court under Section 24 C.P.C. as already stated, the High Court has got unquestionable power to transfer cases from one Court to the other Court. In such cases, the local Civil Courts will continue to exercise the jurisdiction in respect of all matrimonial matters. 15. Coming to the power of the High Court under Section 24 C.P.C. as already stated, the High Court has got unquestionable power to transfer cases from one Court to the other Court. Similarly, as the Family Court is also a Court subordinate to the High Court and is subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court is empowered under Section 24 of the C.P.C. to transfer cases from one Family Court to the other Family Court. 16. But, the question in this case is whether this Court can transfer a case from the file of a Family Court to a Civil Court. As already stated, in the absence of constitution of a Family Court, the Civil Court is empowered to exercise jurisdiction in respect of matrimonial cases, by virtue of the provisions of Section 8. Therefore, in places where Family Court is not established, as the local Courts are vested with the jurisdiction to deal with matrimonial cases, such local Courts are competent to try the matrimonial cases of the nature which are mentioned in the Explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. In such a case, there may not be any bar under Section 8 of the C.P.C. from transferring the cases pending in a Family Court to such Civil Courts. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 24 of the C.P.C. can transfer cases which are instituted in a Family Court to the Courts within whose local jurisdiction no Family Court is constituted.” 11. A reference is also made to the observations in P. Jaya Lakshmi vs. K. Revichandran referred above in Para-17 of this ruling and, they are: “17............. “Section 8 lays down that where a Family Court has been established for any area, no District Court or Subordinate Civil Court will have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to Subsection (1) of Section 8. Under clause (b), the Magistrate in that area will cease to have jurisdiction regarding matters governed by Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. It is significant to remember that the exclusion of jurisdiction is limited to the area for which the Family court is constituted. The words used are such area. Under clause (b), the Magistrate in that area will cease to have jurisdiction regarding matters governed by Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. It is significant to remember that the exclusion of jurisdiction is limited to the area for which the Family court is constituted. The words used are such area. In view of the wording of Section 8 the exclusion of jurisdiction for the Civil and Criminal Court is confined to area for which Family Court is constituted and there are no words indicated that the parties to that proceedings are prohibited from approaching any other Court outside the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Section 20 of Family Courts Act indicate that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. A harmonious interpretation of Sections 3, 7, 8 and 20 clearly indicates that there is no bar against the parties from approaching other Courts outside the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Courts is confined to the area over which the Family Court exercises jurisdiction......” For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent.” 12. When there are courts, equally competent to consider and determine the matrimonial disputes, which have jurisdiction either under Hindu Marriage Act or any other law applicable it is rather difficult to draw any such distinction only on the premise of hierarchal differentiation among the cadres of the presiding officers manning either the family Court or the court of ordinary civil jurisdiction conferred with matrimonial jurisdiction. 13. In the light of this situation when right to justice is of primordial consideration, when a party requests transfer of his/her matter either from the Family court to court of ordinary civil jurisdiction, enjoying equal competence and efficacy similarly to apply the same provisions of substantive and procedural laws, it cannot be stated that such request shall be confined to a Court of equal status in hierarchal system prevalent in the State or in the country.” 10. After following the ratio laid down in the above referred Judgment, this Court is of an opinion that there is no bar for transferring the divorce petition from the Family Court to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court by invoking Section 24 of CPC, when the petitioner able to prove that it is inconvenient for her to attend the Court at Visakhapatnam, where divorce petition filed by the respondent is pending. 11. As discussed supra, the respondent attended two cases, i.e. MC No. 7 of 2015 and DVC No. 25 of 2015, filed by the petitioner against him, which were allowed and now CC No. 211 of 2015 is pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, wherein the respondent and his family members are shown as an accused. 12. It is consistent view of Hon’ble Apex Court and also High Courts in India that in respect of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of wife has to be considered by keeping in mind the inconvenience if any expressed by the respondent when the request of the petitioner/wife is considered for transfer of the case from one Court to another Court. For which, the respondent/husband has not chosen to contest the case expressing his inconvenience for him to attend the Court at Bobbili, when the petition filed by him, seeking divorce petition transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili from the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 13. After considering the fact that the petitioner is a house-maker, having minor child, who is now depending upon her parents for her livelihood, as her petition seeking maintenance and complaining domestic violence in the hands of the respondent allowed by the competent Court by granting maintenance and compensation, it is jut to consider her request to transfer divorce petition filed by the respondent from the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, at Bobbili of Vizianagaram District. 14. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 on the file of Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Bobbili. 14. In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 on the file of Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Bobbili. The Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case records in FCOP No. 1126 of 2021 after duly indexed to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Bobbili as expeditiously as possible within Two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of Orders of this Court in the present petition. On receiving the records by the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili which shall be re-registered and disposed of the case as per the procedure laid down under law. Both the parties shall appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili on 17.03.2023 at 10.30 a.m. The Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili shall also explore possibility of amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute between the parties as per the procedure laid down under law. The Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili shall not insist physical presence of the respondent for each and every adjournment, if he engages an Advocate except as and when required during the course of enquiry or at the time of recording his evidence. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay granted if any, shall stand vacated.