ORDER : These Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the same parties can be disposed of by Common Order. 2. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.205 of 2022 filed by the husband against the wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.320 of 2021 from Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge at Rajamahendravaram to Family Court at Vijayawada or any Court in Krishna District. 3. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.94 of 2022 filed by the wife against the husband seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2021 from Family Court-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram to conduct trial and dispose the same. 4. It is admitted fact that the marriage between the parties solemnized on 08.08.2020 at Rajamahendravaram as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailing in their community. The wife alleged that at the time of marriage her parents paid cash and gold to the respondents towards dowry. She also alleged that it is difficult for her to attend the Court at Vijayawada in a petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights whereas the husband alleged that when he attended the Court at Rajamahendravaram in a divorce petition filed by the wife his father-in-law along with two unknown persons have attacked him for which he also lodged a report before Superintendent of Police, but they failed to take any action on the ground that it is a family dispute. 5. The contention of the husband is that now wife is working as Software Engineer in Infosys Company at Bangalore leaving the child with her parents and he is now unemployed residing at Vijayawada, due to that it is difficult for him to travel to Rajamahendravaram to attend the Court in a divorce petition filed by the wife. Whereas the contention of the wife is that she is having child aged 8 months, it is difficult for her to travel a distance of 392 KMs from Rajamahendravaram to Vijayawada as of now she is not having any male assistance. Both parties have complaining difficulty to travel the cases filed by them in different Courts but fact remains is that restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by the husband before Family Court at Vijayawada is prior to the divorce petition filed by the wife. Both parties have complaining difficulty to travel the cases filed by them in different Courts but fact remains is that restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by the husband before Family Court at Vijayawada is prior to the divorce petition filed by the wife. In additional affidavit filed by the husband he attached copy of photographs to show that now the wife is staying at Bangalore by leaving the child at Rajamahendravaram. The contention of the wife is that now and then she attended the Office but still she is working from home by staying at Rajamahendravaram. 6. The learned counsel representing the wife would submit that though now and then wife attended Office at Bangalore as she is having a child less than one year now staying at in her parents’ house at Rajamahendravaram due to that it is difficult for her to travel to attend the Family Court at Vijayawada. He would further submit that in case of transfer of matrimonial proceedings convenience of the wife has to be considered and prays to allow the transfer petition filed by the wife and dismiss the transfer petition filed by the husband. 7. The learned counsel for husband would submit that they filed additional affidavit along with copy of photographs to show that wife attending office at Bangalore who also participated in ‘Karnataka Rajyotsava’, which supports the contention of the husband that wife leaving the child in her parents’ house attending office at Bangalore. She prays to dismiss the transfer petition filed by the wife and allow the transfer petition filed by the husband. 8. In view of rival submissions, now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is: “Whether there are any grounds to consider transfer petitions filed by the wife and husband?” 9. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’), which reads as under: “24. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘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 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”.] 10. In the present case husband as well as wife are submitting that it is difficult for them to attend the places where each of them filed matrimonial proceedings. In similar situation the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnaveni Nagam/Petitioner Vs Harish Nagam/ respondent in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1912 of 2014 judgment dated 09.03.2017 held at Para 14 to 19, which reads as under: “14. In similar situation the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnaveni Nagam/Petitioner Vs Harish Nagam/ respondent in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1912 of 2014 judgment dated 09.03.2017 held at Para 14 to 19, 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.” 19. We hope the above arrangement may, to an extent, reduce hardship to the litigants as noted above in the Order of this Court dated 9th January, 2017. However, in the present case since the matter is pending in this Court for about three years, we are satisfied that the prayer for transfer may be allowed. Accordingly, we direct that proceedings in Case No.179A/2013 under Section 13 of the Act titled “Harish Nagam Vs. Krishnaveni Nagam” pending on the file of II Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, we direct that proceedings in Case No.179A/2013 under Section 13 of the Act titled “Harish Nagam Vs. Krishnaveni Nagam” pending on the file of II Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. If the parties seek mediation the transferee court may explore the possibility of an amicable settlement through mediation. It will be open to the transferee court to conduct the proceedings or record evidence of the witnesses who are unable to appear in court by way of video conferencing. Records shall be sent by court where proceedings are pending to the transferee court forthwith. 11. It is no doubt true that it is consistent view of Hon’ble Apex Court prior to Krishnaveni Nagam’s Case referred supra that in respect of matrimonial proceedings inconvenience of wife has to be considered but at the same time it has to be considered whether the contention of the wife seeking transfer on grounds mentioned in her petition are tenable can be accepted and we have to balance the convenience and inconvenience of the wife and also husband. 12. In additional affidavit filed by the husband along with ICICI Bank Statement of wife, copy of photographs shows that wife attended the office at Bangalore who also participated ‘Karnataka Rajyotsava’ on 01.11.2022. The contention of learned counsel for wife is that may be some occasions wife has attended the office at Bangalore but still she is staying in her parents’ house at Rajamahendravaram and she is working from home. For which no material placed before this Court to support her contentions. Husband also filed copy of report filed before Superintendent of Police, Rajamahendravaram alleging that when he attended the Court at Rajamahendravaram at 10.05.2022 his father-in-law and others have attacked him. After considering the difficulties expressed by both sides by following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishnaveni Nagam’s Case referred supra as restitution of conjugal life petition filed by husband is prior to the divorce petition filed by wife before Family Court at Rajamahendravaram which can be transferred to Family Court, Vijayawada to try along with F.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2021. There are grounds to consider the request of husband to transfer of F.C.O.P.No.320 of 2021 from Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge Court at Rajamahendravaram to Family Court at Vijayawada. There are grounds to consider the request of husband to transfer of F.C.O.P.No.320 of 2021 from Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge Court at Rajamahendravaram to Family Court at Vijayawada. The Family Court at Vijayawada shall try F.C.O.P.No.320 of 2021 and F.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2021 and record common evidence and dispose of the cases as per procedure laid down under law. The Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada shall not insist physical appearance of both parties before the Court and shall consider to avail the video conferencing facility as per procedure laid down under law with the consent of the parties. The learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada shall explore the possibility of amicable settlement of matrimonial dispute between the parties by conducting the counselling or conciliation as per procedure laid down under law. 13. In the result, Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.205 of 2022 is allowed. The F.C.O.P.No.320 of 2021 is withdrawn from the Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge at Rajamahendravaram and transferred to the Family Court at Vijayawada to try along with F.C.O.P.No.1492 of 2021 as per directions of this Court referred supra. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.94 of 2022 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim stay granted if any, shall stand vacated.