This Tr. C.M.P. is filed with a prayer to transfer V.M.C.No.1 of 2006, listed in the Court of Vacation District Judge, Dharwad, which thereafter, is scheduled to be transmitted to the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Senior Division, Hubli, to the Family Court at Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 14-11-2003 at Hyderabad. They were also blessed with a child. The respondent filed V.M.C.No.1 of 2006, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act), against the petitioner, by urging several grounds. Before that, he filed M.C.No.1 of 2006, for the same relief, but had withdrawn it. The petitioner on the other hand, filed F.C.O.P.No.481 of 2006 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights .She pleads that it would be difficult and unsafe for her, to attend the Court at Hubli. It is alleged that she has been subjected to harassment, by the respondent at various points of time, and that at present, she is residing with her parents, on being deserted by the respondent.

3. Sri P. Vinod kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the V.M.C. was filed in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, in the State of Karnataka, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Tr. C.M.P. He relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Vempati Sarada v. Vempati Kaladhar1 and Mamta Gupta v. Mukund Kumar Gupta2.

4. Sri S.R. Sanku, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Tr. C.M.P., in respect of a matter pending in the Court in a different place. He made submissions on merits also.

5. By all means, the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act, against the petitioner, in the Vacation Court, may have been transmitted to the regular Court and re-numbered. Obviously, due to lack of information, the petitioner had furnished the number given by the Vacation Court.

6. There must not have been any difficulty, in acceding to the request of the petitioner, if it is legally feasible:- The reason is that, the difficulty for a woman, with a child of tender age, and living separately from her husband, to travel long distance to defend herself, in matrimonial proceedings; can easily be imagined. The Parliament amended Section 19 of the Act, to enable the women spouses, to institute the proceedings in the Courts, within whose jurisdiction they reside. The spirit underlying the same, deserves to be extended to the instances where they are required to defend themselves, in the proceedings instituted against them. Further when both the spouses have instituted proceedings against each other, at different places; normally the effort must be to ensure that the proceedings are heard by the Court, within whose jurisdiction the woman spouse resides.

7. This Court is, however, faced with an insurmountable difficulty, on account of the fact that the Court in which, the petition filed by the respondent is pending; is not amenable to its supervision or control.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an effort to convince this Court by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Vempati Sarada v. Vempati Kaladhar (1 supra). That was a case, in which the O.P. pending in a Court, within the State of Andhra Pradesh, was transferred to a Court, in the State of Tamil Nadu. It was held that Sections 23 and 25 of C.P.C., permits such a course. To the same effect is the judgment in Mamta Gupta v. Mukund Kumar Gupta (2 supra). Learned counsel contends that when it is permissible for this Court, to transfer a case, pending on the file of a court, subordinate to it, to a Court outside the State, there should not be any difficulty in transferring a case pending in a different State, to a Court within the State of Andhra Pradesh.

9. In the two cases, referred to above, the proceedings pending in the Courts within the State of Andhra Pradesh, w