JUDGMENT 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband under Sec. 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2022 from the Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District to Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta of Srikakulam District. 2. The case of the petitioner/wife in brief is that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 19/4/2019 in a function hall at Tadepalligudem as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailing in their community. She alleged that at the time of marriage her parents gave cash and gold to the respondent towards dowry and thereafter, she joined her husband to lead marital life. 3. The petitioner submits that respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2022 before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and now, she is residing at Kasibugga Town of Srikakulam District where she is doing petty job due to that it is inconvenient for her to travel a distance of 450 KMs to attend the Court at Tadepalligudem. It is also the contention of the petitioner that she filed M.C.No.17 of 2022 and lodged a report against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC, which is registered as C.C.No.651 of 2022 pending before Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Palasa of Srikakulam District, wherein respondent is attending. The main contention of the petitioner is that she being a single lady, not in a position to travel from Kasibugga Town to Tadepalligudem to attend the Court in divorce petition filed by the respondent. She prays to allow the petition. 4. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. 5. It is the contention of the respondent that there are no bonafides in the contention of the petitioner as she already engaged a counsel and filed counter in the divorce petition filed by him, where she has not specifically denied contentions raised by him in his divorce petition. He submits that there are no medical grounds. No child and no physical threat to the petitioner when she attends the Court at Tadepalligudem due to that only on the ground of distance request of the petitioner cannot be considered. He also cited precedent law in his counter. He prays to allow the petition. 6. I have heard both sides. 7. No child and no physical threat to the petitioner when she attends the Court at Tadepalligudem due to that only on the ground of distance request of the petitioner cannot be considered. He also cited precedent law in his counter. He prays to allow the petition. 6. I have heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner being a single lady, residing at Kasibugga Town of Srikakulam District, who also filed two cases against respondent which are pending before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa where the respondent is attending due to that it is not inconvenient for the respondent to attend the Court at Sompeta where Senior Civil Judge Court is located. He would further submit that petitioner is also suffering from ill-health and not in a position to travel a distance of 450 KMs to attend the Court at Tadepalligudem being a single lady. He prays to allow the petition. 8. The learned counsel for respondent would submit that though the petitioner is now staying in her parents' house at Kasibugga Town that itself is not a ground to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer divorce petition to Senior Civil Judge Court at Sompeta. She would further submit that respondent is ready to pay travel and other expenses of the petitioner whenever she attends the Court at Tadepalligudem. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent that divorce petition filed by the respondent may be transferred to either Family Court, Rajahmundry or Visakhapatnam. She prays to dismiss the petition. 9. In view of rival submissions, now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is: "Whether there are any grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer H.M.O.P.No.24 of 2022 from Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem to Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta?" 10. It is no doubt true that, it is consistent view of Hon'ble Apex Court 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 the petitioner/wife seeking transfer on the ground mentioned in her petition are tenable can be accepted and we have to balance the convenience and inconvenience of the wife and also husband. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnaveni Nagam/Petitioner Vs Harish Nagam respondent in Transfer Petition Civil No.1912 of 2014 judgment dtd. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnaveni Nagam/Petitioner Vs Harish Nagam respondent in Transfer Petition Civil No.1912 of 2014 judgment dtd. 9/3/2017 held at Para 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 email 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 email 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. In Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma, (2005) 11 SCC 535 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that merely because the petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel to the place where the petition filed by the husband is pending. In the said case Hon'ble Apex Court directed the husband to pay to the wife travel and stay expenses on every occasion, wife required to attend the Court. the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that merely because the petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel to the place where the petition filed by the husband is pending. In the said case Hon'ble Apex Court directed the husband to pay to the wife travel and stay expenses on every occasion, wife required to attend the Court. In the present case also petitioner seeking transfer of the case from Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District to Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta on the ground that she has to travel at a distance of 450 KMs to attend the Senior Civil Judge Court at Tadepalligudem. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are medical grounds also which are not pleaded and no document is filed to show that petitioner is suffering from any ailments and in addition to that petitioner herself stated in affidavit that she is living in her parents' house and also doing petty job at Kasibugga Town which itself shows that she is in a position to travel to attend the Court at Tadepalligudem. It is not in dispute that petitioner already filed counter in the divorce petition filed by the respondent before Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem. Now the case is coming up for enquiry. In those circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer the case from Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem to Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta where no other cases are pending and cases which the petitioner has filed are subsequent to the filing of divorce petition by the respondent, which is pending before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa, which is said to be at a distance of 25 KMs from Sompeta. 12. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem shall not insist physical presence of the petitioner except during the course of enquiry or at the time of recording her evidence. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem shall also consider request, if any, made by parties to adduce evidence by utilising video conferencing facility as directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnaveni Nagam's case referred supra. 13. The respondent shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,000.00 to the petitioner whenever she physically appears before learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem shall also consider request, if any, made by parties to adduce evidence by utilising video conferencing facility as directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnaveni Nagam's case referred supra. 13. The respondent shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,000.00 to the petitioner whenever she physically appears before learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem shall ensure that such payment is made to the petitioner on every occasion. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem is also directed to explore possibility of amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes between the parties by conducting counselling or conciliation as per procedure laid down under law and shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible within one (1) year from the date of receipt of orders of this Court in the present petition. 14. With the above directions, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed. Interim stay granted if any shall stands vacated.