ORDER : V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, Kakinada District, for trial and disposal of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner No.1/wife is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 22.12.2021, in the presence of both side elders and well-wishers at Palm Beach Hotel, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner No.1/wife has been residing separately in her parents’ house and working as a Government School Teacher at Peddapuram Village, Kakinada District. II. The petitioner No.1/wife further pleaded that the respondent herein is a person of bad vices and on account of that, he used to harass the petitioner No.1/wife, by compelling her to incorporate his name as a nominee in all her belongings, including her service records, bank passbooks, school records, insurance certificates, savings bonds, etc. She further submitted that the respondent also demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner No.1/wife, for arranging her transfer from Peddapuram to Visakhapatnam. III. The petitioner No.1/wife further pleaded that on 26.02.2014, while she was on her way to school, she met with a motor accident and sustained a fracture to her right hand, the parents of the petitioner attended to her medical treatment and surgery by incurring huge expenses. The petitioner No.1/wife again met with an accident on 26.01.2015 and sustained a fracture and sprain to her right ankle, for which she underwent treatment at Siddhartha Hospital, Kakinada, until 12.03.2015. Again, on 27.09.2015, while the petitioner No.1/wife was travelling to school in an auto, she met with another accident and sustained an injury to her right leg below the ankle. It is further submitted that, the petitioner No.1/wife had met with three accidents and she is not in a good position of physical condition to undertake long-distance travel from Peddapuram to Visakhapatnam. IV. It is further submitted that, the petitioner No.1/wife had met with three accidents and she is not in a good position of physical condition to undertake long-distance travel from Peddapuram to Visakhapatnam. IV. The petitioner N.1/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass the petitioner No.1/wife, the respondent/husband herein filed a petition vide F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 7(1)(c) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, seeking for return of marriage expenses, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner No.1/wife is working as a Government School Teacher at Peddapuram, Kakinada District, the distance between Peddapuram and Visakhapatnam is more than 150Kms and it is very difficult to travel to attend the case proceedings, which was filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Visakhapatnam and that the petitioner No.1/wife is constrained to file the present petition, seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, Kakinada District, for trial and disposal of the same. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing both sides on record. 4. As seen from the material available on record, the marriage between the petitioner No.1/wife and the respondent/husband was solemnized on 22.12.2012 at Palm Beach Hotel, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam, and subsequently the same was dissolved by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajamahendravaram, vide Order dated 20.01.2021. The contention of the respondent/husband is that no appeal was preferred by the petitioner No.1/wife against the Decree of Divorce granted by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajamahendravaram. 5. The petitioners herein approached this Court seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, Kakinada District. It is undisputed by both sides that the marriage between the petitioner No.1/wife and the respondent /husband was dissolved by the competent Court on 20.01.2021. The contention of the respondent/husband is that the said F.C.O.P. No.706 of 2018 was filed before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 7(1)(c) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, seeking return of marriage expenses, the same is pending for adjudication. 6. Mr. The contention of the respondent/husband is that the said F.C.O.P. No.706 of 2018 was filed before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 7(1)(c) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, seeking return of marriage expenses, the same is pending for adjudication. 6. Mr. T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the marriage was performed at Palm Beach Hotel, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam, the witnesses to be examined on behalf of the respondent are the Hotel Manager, concerned staff of the Hotel and the other persons residing at Visakhapatnam in F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. He further contended that it is not possible to bring all the witnesses from Visakhapatnam to any other place for the purpose of giving evidence, and it would be very difficult for the witnesses to travel from Visakhapatnam to Peddapuram to give evidence depose before the Court at Peddapuram. 7. As stated supra, F.C.O.P. No.706 of 2018 was instituted by the respondent/husband herein seeking return of marriage expenses and it is undisputed by both sides that the said marriage was dissolved by a competent Court at Rajamahendravaram in the year 2021 itself. It is further undisputed that no appeal was preferred challenging the Decree of Divorce granted by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajamahendravaram. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the enquiry in F.C.O.P. No.706 of 2018 has already been commenced. As could be seen from the material available on record, the enquiry in the said case was commenced, and there is no progress in F.C.O.P. No.706 of 2018, which was instituted about seven (7) years ago before the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, at this stage, if the F.C.O.P. No.706 of 2018 is transferred from Visakhapatnam to any other Court situated at a different place, the proceedings in the said case would be further delayed. Moreover, having regard to the nature of the case in F.C.O.P. No.706 of 2018, which was filed by the respondent/husband, seeking for return of marriage expenses, the personal appearance of the petitioner herein is not at all required before the learned Judge, Family Court, in connection with the said F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018, on all the dates of hearing and she also engaged a counsel in F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 8. 8. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court that the father of the petitioner No.1/wife died and her mother was suffering from old age ailments and the petitioner No.1/wife is also working as a Government School Teacher in Peddapuram and that it is very difficult for her to travel from Peddapuram to Visakhapatnam to attend the case proceedings on each and every adjournment before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 9. As stated supra, in view of the nature of the case vide F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018, which was filed for return of marriage expenses, the personal appearance of the petitioner No.1/wife herein is not at all required on the date of each and every adjournment before the Judge, Family Court. Moreover, the enquiry has been commenced in the said F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018, therefore, her personal appearance is required only on one day i.e., on the date of recording her evidence. It is also noticed that the petitioner No.1/wife herein engaged a counsel in the said F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is hereby instructed not to insist the personal appearance of the petitioner No.1/wife herein i.e., respondent in F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018, except on the date of recording her evidence of cross-examination and also on the day when her personal appearance is essentially required before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 10. For the above said reasons, I am of the considered view that there are no justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioners to transfer the said F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 to Peddapuram. As seen from the material available on record, the F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 has been pending from the last seven (07) years and there is no progress in the said case. On hearing learned counsel appearing on both sides, I am of the considered view that it is desirable to direct the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, to dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 within a period of five (05) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed in the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs. 11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is hereby instructed not to insist the personal appearance of the petitioner No.1/wife herein i.e. respondent in F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018, before the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, as long as her counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when re-conciliation proceedings are being taken up or on the day when her cross-examination is required to be recorded or on any other day when her personal appearance is required as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is hereby further directed to dispose of the said F.C.O.P.No.706 of 2018 within a period of five (05) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, send the compliance report to the Registrar (Judicial). As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.