The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering practical difficulties and the precedence of proceedings in determining the transfer of cases between different courts.

This Transfer CMP has been filed to withdraw the O.P.No.1939 of 206 pending on the file of the Family Court, Chennai, and transfer the same to be tried and heard along with the marriage Petition No:230 of 2006 on the file of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune.

2. The father of the petitioner who is also the power agent has sworn to an affidavit stating that the petitioner was given in marriage to the respondent on 15. 1994 as per Hindu Customary rites with sridharna both cash and gold and silver articles. After marriage the couples lived at Bangalore. From the date of marriage the petitioner was not treated properly for no reason. The respondent even prevented her from continuing her studies. Later the respondent and his relatives humiliated the petitioner in the presence of others for not giving birth to a child. The parties consulted a physician. The tests revealed that the respondent is impotent. Despite that, the respondent used to abuse and treat the petitioner cruelly. The family members and the respondent are keen in taking the earnings of the petitioner and they resisted the proposal to adopt a child. Being left with no other alternative, the petitioner issued an Advocate Notice on 6. 2006 calling upon the respondent to give his consent for a divorce by mutual consent. But there was no reply and did not change his behaviour. Therefore the petitioner filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1) (1a) and 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in Marriage Petition No.230 of 2006 before the Civil Judge at Pune. In the said case summons were duly served on the respondent and he also engaged and Advocate at Pune. But as a counterblast he field a petition under Section 9 of the said Act in O.P.No.1939 of 206 before the Family Court at Chennai.

.3. It is also averred that the petitioner is residing at Pimpri, Pune and the respondent is a resident of Bangalore. Therefore, it will be difficult for the petitioner to travel all along from Pune to Chennai for every hearing. As on today the petitioner is employed abroad. The proceedings initiated at Pune Court is earlier to the proceedings initiated by the respondent at Chennai. If the case is to continue at Chennai the petitioner will be forced to travel from Pune to Chennai, when she is in India. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the O.P. proceedings filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to be transferred to the file of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune and heard along with the Marriage Petition filed by the petitioner.

4. In support of the above averments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mamta Gupta V.Mukund Kumar Guptha reported in AIR 2000 AP. 394 wherein it has been held that the High Courts are empowered by Section 23(3) CPC to transfer a case and it is for the party seeking transfer either to choose the form under Section 25 or 25 depending upon his social, economic status. But, to say that the party has to file an application only before the Supreme Court under Section 25, would amount to emasculating Section 23 (3). Both the provisions are independent and option is left to the party approaching the court for transfer. Therefore, Section 25 did not overlap Section 23(3) CPC.

.5. In 2003 AIHC 2876, (Vempati Sarada Vs. Vempati Kaladhar), another learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh reiterated the same position and held thus:-

."11. A reading of both the provisions will clearly go to show that these provisions are independent provisions and absolutely there is no conflict between these two provisions. Merely because the High Court is empowered to order transfer of a proceeding pending before a Subordinate Court within its jurisdiction to another Court Subordinate to another High court, it may not come in the way of the powers which may be exercised by the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code. Hence, by a close reading of both provi