The convenience and inconvenience of the parties, especially the wife, is the paramount consideration for the exercise of power under Section 24, CPC.

A. S. NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a young lady of twenty-four years, has filed this application under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inter alia praying to transfer Civil Proceeding No. 147 of 1999 pending adjudication before the judge, Family Court, Rourkela to the Judge. Family Court, Cuttack.

( 2 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner married the opposite party as per the Hindu rites and customs on April 19, 1998. The opposite party-husband is serving as an Additional Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and is at present posted at Kuanrmunda Veterinary Hospital, rourkela. According to the petitioner-wife, dowryamount as demanded both in the shape of cash and kind was paid to the parents of the opposite party, the details of which are vividly described in paragraph-4 of the petition. As ill luck would have it, dissensions cropped up at the very inception, inasmuch as the opposite party did not accept the petitioner and she was told that theopposite party had been forced to marry her unwillingly. It is further alleged that the petitioner was tortured and physically man-handled and ill-treated by the opposite party and there was demand of further dowry. Several other allegations have also been made in the petiton which are not very much relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present petition which is one under section24, CPC. It is suffice to say that the petitioner left her in-laws' place in the year 1999 and since then is alleged to be staying with her grand-parents at village Bandha Huda, p. S. Narasinghpur in the district of Cuttack. It is averred that the petitioner-wife has alaso lodged an FIR before the State Mahila Commission as well as the Inspector-in-charge of h. R. P. C. . Tulsipur, Cuttack for redressal of her grievance.

( 3 ) WHILE the matters stood thus, on November 19, 1999 the petitioner was informed by her father that Civil Proceeding No. 147 of 1999 had been instituted by the opposite party-husband before the Judge, Family Court, rourkela inter alia for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party by a decree of divorce. The petitioner has alleged that the opposite party-husband with an avowed ablique motive of harassing her has initiated the said proceeding at Rourkela knowing fully well that it would not be convenient or possible for her to travel all the way to rourkela to contest the litigation and the petitioner has no way out, but to file the present petition for transfter of the said Civil Proceeding to the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for effectual adjudication. In support of her prayer, the petitioner has put forth the following grounds : (1) The petitioner is a young unemployed lady and has no place to stay at Rourkela and prosecute the litigaton. (2) She is staying with her grand-parents in her native village. She does not have the means to travel all the way from her village Bandha huda in the district of Cuttack to rourkela and neither her grandparents nor the parents have the ability to meet her travelling expenses; and (3) The petitioner, a young lady as she is, apprehends danger to her life if she is made to go to Rourkela, which is 500 kilometres away from her native place, for the purpose of prosecuting the litigation and she has no other male member to accompany her.

( 4 ) THE opposite party-husband after receiving notice has appeared and filed a counter-affidavit repudiating different allegations made in the petition. It is stated that in spite of his best efforts, the dissensions between him and the petitioner could not be ironed for which he had no way out but to file the petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Judge, Family Court, rourkela which has been registered as C. P. No. 147 of 1999. It is further stated that though notice was duly served on the petitioner in the said proceeding, neither the petitioner has appeared before the Court nor has shown any cause. It is also contended b