ORDER : 1. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for ‘short the C.P.C.’) seeking for transfer of H.M.O.P.No. 11 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District, to the file of the learned Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is none other than the wife of the respondent/husband, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 09.06.2022, at Manukonda Kalyana Mandapam, Macherla Town, Palnadu District, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes in between both the parties; the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents house at Vijayawada, Krishna District. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause unnecessary inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioneir/wife further pleaded that, she has been residing separately at her parents’ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Vijayawada, the distance between Vijayawada and Gurazala is more than 130 Kms, since the petitioner/wife being a women, it is very difficult for her to Gurazala to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment, and that she was constrained , [travel without any male assistance from Vijayawada to file the present transfer petition seeking for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District, to the file of the learned Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides on record. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent filed his counter-affidavit by denying the averments mentioned in the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent/husband herein is a software engineer and working at Hyderabad and he also filed a petition i.e., H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District. Perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent filed his counter-affidavit by denying the averments mentioned in the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent/husband herein is a software engineer and working at Hyderabad and he also filed a petition i.e., H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner/wife is an employee and working as a software engineer and currently doing her job by way of work from home at Vijayawada. - 7. Today when the matter has been taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client made appearance in H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024, filed by the respondent/husband herein and also engaged counsel and Vakalat also has been filed before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala, and except the said H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024, there are no pending cases between both the parties at both the places either at Vijayawada or at Gurazala. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the marriage of the petitioner/wife with the respondent/husband was performed at Palanadu area, both the parties are residing in Hyderabad and the Court at Vijayawada is not having jurisdiction to try the said H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024, which is pending for adjudication. 9. The material on record, prima facie goes to show that the H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024, is pending for commencement of enquiry before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District. It is also clear that, except the said H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024, there are no pending cases between both the parties at both the places either at Vijayawada or at Gurazala. 10. No doubt, in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Admittedly, in the case on hand, both the parties are employees and working as a software engineers. The contention of the respondent/husband herein is that, he is working as a software engineer at Hyderabad, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his client is currently residing at Vijayawada and doing her job by way of work from home. The contention of the respondent/husband herein is that, he is working as a software engineer at Hyderabad, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his client is currently residing at Vijayawada and doing her job by way of work from home. Since the aforesaid case i.e., H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024, is pending for enquiry and there are no other pending cases between both the parties either at Gurazala or at Vijayawada and therefore, I am of the considered view that there are no justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District, to the file of the learned Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. However, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner/wife herein is a software employee and currently doing her job by way of work from home, the personal appearance of the respondent/wife in H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024 has been dispensed with before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala, Palnadu District. 11. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the petitioner herein i.e., the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when her cross-examination in evidence is specifically required to be recorded or on any other day when her personal appearance is required as directed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala, Palnadu District. 12. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on both sides that a time limit may be fixed to the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District, for early disposal of the present case. On considering submissions made by the learned counsel appearingon both sides that, this court feels it is desirable to direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District, to dispose of the matter i.e., H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024, within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 13. On considering submissions made by the learned counsel appearingon both sides that, this court feels it is desirable to direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District, to dispose of the matter i.e., H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2024, within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 13. With the above observations, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of, the personal appearance of the petitioner/wife herein i.e., respondent in H.M.OP.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Palnadu District, has been dispensed with except on the days when her cross-examination in evidence is specifically required to be recorded or any other day when her personal attendance is required as directed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, 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.