ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code (in short “CPC”) seeking transfer of H.M.O.P. No.127 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

2. The case of the petitioner/wife in brief is that her marriage with respondent solemnised on 13.11.2019 at Visakhapatnam, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage, both have resided together at Bangalore, where the respondent is working as Software Engineer. The petitioner alleged that the respondent harassed her on demand of additional dowry and she returned to her parents’ house, as she conceived and gave birth to a female child on 10.11.2020, now aged two and half years. The main contention of the petitioner is that respondent harassed her on demand of additional dowry, due to that she is now residing in her parents’ house at Visakhapatnam. Whereas the respondent though working at Bangalore filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on false grounds before Senior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem, which is 300 kms from Vishakhapatnam, it is difficult for her to travel to Tadepalligudem along with her minor child. She prays to allow the petition.

3. I have heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is now residing in her parents’ house at Visakhapatnam, which is at a distance of 300 kms from Tadepalligudem, where the respondent has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights with false grounds. He would further submit that though conciliation is conducted between the parties, there is no chance of reunion and both parties are throwing blame on each other. He would further submit that after considering the fact that minor child, aged two and half years is now under care and custody of the petitioner, it will be difficult for petitioner to travel from Visakhapatnam to Tadepalligudem. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent worked at Bangalore, now said to be residing at Tadepalligudem, where he filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. He prays to allow the petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner having appeared before the Court at Tadepalligudem, engaged a counsel, not filed any counter and chosen to file this transfer petition seeking transfer with false grounds. He prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Admittedly, marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnised on 13.11.2019 at Visakhapatnam. They also blessed with a girl child, now aged two and half years. Unfortunately, disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent, which they are not able to sort out though conducted conciliation between the parties at the request of the counsel representing both sides. The fact remains is that now, the petitioner along with her minor child residing in her parents’ house at Visakhapatnam, whereas husband, who is said to be worked as a Software Engineer residing at Tadepalligudem, where he filed petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sangeetha alias Shreya Vs. Prasant Vijay Wargiya1, while dealing with the similar facts held that between husband and wife, the inconvenience of the wife must prevail particularly when the wife has a 21/2 year-old child. It is the consistent view of the Hon’ble Apex Court that in respect of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered vide ratio laid down in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor babulal Pardeshi 2 , it is also held that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

7. After considering the fact that petitioner is now residing in her parents’ house along with her, two and half years old child, whereas