ORDER :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 24 of CPC to transfer OP No. 973 of 2018, now pending on the file of the Court of Additional Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 26.6.2011. Apparently, disputes arose between this couple. The petitioner is now residing at Bhimavaram. Whereas the respondent is a resident of Visakhapatnam.

3. The respondent has instituted OP No. 973 of 2018, on the file of the Court of learned Additional Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, for dissolution of marriage, setting out several grounds, against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed MC No. 65 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for grant of maintenance for her and her children. It is stated to be pending. Apart from that, the petitioner has also filed a complaint in I-Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, against the respondent, making certain allegations, including as to alleged intimacy of the respondent and one Smt. Sagar Devi, where FIR is registered in Cr. No. 255 of 2018, on 15.7.2018. Investigation in this case is stated to be continuing. She also filed a complaint under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Court of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, against the respondent.

4. Now, the difficulty expressed by the petitioner is, to attend the Court at Visakhapatnam, on the dates of hearing, from Bhimavaram, on account of her financial difficulties. She also pointed out that the distance between these two places is 220 Kms. She also alleged that there is a threat to her life, if she attends the Court at Visakhapatnam, from the respondent. Thus, stating, she requested transfer of the above OP No. 973 of 2018 from Visakhapatnam to the competent Court at Bhimavaram.

5. Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted arguments, assisting the Court, clarifying the legal position. The respondent is served notice. None represented him, in this matter.

6. In this backdrop, the question now emerges is-"whether a matrimonial dispute pending before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction be transferred in terms of Section 24 CPC to the Family Court or vice-versa.

7. Inasmuch as, the respondent did not choose to contest the matter, the reasons so assigned by the petitioner have to be taken into consideration, since they remained uncontroverted. However, difficulty felt in considering the request of the petitioner, on account of the judgment of one of the learned Judges of this Court in Chakradharamahanthi Venkata Maikya Prasuna v. C. Venkata Rama Murthy and Batch of cases, 2019 (2) ALT 1. Certain guidelines are settled in the above ruling, after elaborate discussion of effect of Section 24 CPC various precedents, different provisions of Family Court Act, including constitutional provisions, as to access to justice, fair trial and certain international covenants, which have bearing vis-a-vis judicial proceedings. Constitutional provisions have been invited into the arena of family disputes in this ruling. Nonetheless, the observations, so recorded, in the above ruling of this Court since have certain bearing in the matters, particularly, in the interests of posterity, it is now being discussed hereunder.

8. One of the guidelines in the above ruling is that, matrimonial cases pending on the file of Judge, Family Court, shall not be withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, as the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted by Section 8 of the Family Courts Act.

9. Power of this Court in terms of Section 24 CPC is exhaustively considered in the above ruling, particularly, in Para 100, observing that the family Court is a Court subordinate to High Court and that the power of the High Court to transfer a proceeding from