ORDER : 1. The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short "the C.P.C.") seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 14.02.2013, at Hotel Sarovar Gardend, Ongole, Prakasam District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Later, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause in convenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that she being a woman, residing separately at her parents' house at Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband would contend that there are no other pending cases between both the parties, except the said case filed by the respondent/husband herein against the petitioner/wife i.e., F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Narasaraopet. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Narasaraopet. Furthermore, the material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband has instituted F.C.O.P.No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. 7. The Apex Court in a case of Geeta Heera Vs. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304 held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed.” 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 held as follows: “9. The cardinal principles for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 9. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 9. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband and petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, it is very difficult for her to travel from Narasaraopet to Ongole, without any male assistance and therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. Further the learned counsel for the respondent contend that the respondent/husband previously used to work as a software engineer at Hyderabad and in view of the cases instituted by the petitioner/wife on earlier occasion, the respondent/husband left his job and is currently residing at Ongole. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, since there are no other cases are pending at Narasaraopet in between both the parties, I am of the considered view that, it is desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, before the transferee Court, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law. 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. The learned Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024, to the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The learned Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024, to the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, on 22.09.2025, at 10.30 a.m. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on both sides that a time limit may be fixed to the transferee Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, for disposal of the present case. On considering submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides that, this court feels it is desirable to direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, to dispose of the matter within a period of six (06) months from the date of appearance of both the parties. Later the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when his cross-examination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal appearance is required as directed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.