ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. to transfer D.V.C.No.9 of 2018 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam to I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada on the ground that she was doing B.Tech at Andhra University, Visakhapatnam and her father was working in a Court at Visakhapatnam Chief Administrative Officer when DVC was filed and later, since her father was transferred to Vijayawada and she is residing along with her father, she is unable to travel from Vijayawada to Visahapatnam to attend the case in DVC No.9 of 2018 and further that she is being put under pressure by threatening her due to political influence and money and muscle power of the respondents. She further contended that the respondents are stating that they will place her pictures on website and threatening to withdraw the cases against them and thus she has threat to her life and dignity.

2. The first respondent filed counter opposing the petition and denying all the allegations against them and further stating that he also received a threatening call from Koganti Sathyam of Vijayawada from his mobile no.9848112999 to his mobile no.9442593598 to settle the disputes, failing which, to face dire consequences. It is his further contention that it is not safe for him and other respondents to travel long distance from Visakhapatnam to Vijayawada and most of the respondents are old aged being more than 70 years old and they have to travel almost 550 kms to attend before this Court.

3. Learned counsels for both parties have submitted their arguments as has pleaded in the petition and the counter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she, being a lone woman having only the support of her father, finds it difficult to travel from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam to attend the matter. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that there is a criminal case filed under Section 498-A IPC pending in one of the Courts at Visakhapatnam against almost all these respondents as accused therein and they are travelling from Srikakulam to Visakhapatnam in relation to such case and that further making them to suffer by travelling all of them for a long distance from Srikakulam to Vijayawada would be more hardship, than the hardship likelihood to be caused to the sole petitioner who can attend once or twice to Court to give evidence in DVC.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.8 to 14 submitted that though they all are not related, they have been implicated in DVC and further if they are made to travel for a long time, it is difficult and further that as his clients R-8, R-9 to R-14 are old aged having crossed 60 years, it would be very hard to travel for every adjournment. He further submitted that since the father of the petitioner is working in a Court, he will have departmental transfers and just because he will be transferred from one place to another, she cannot seek transfer of the case from one place to another.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that the first respondent made bare allegations of threat from the named person without there being any piece of evidence.

6. In Basetty Pradeep Kumar Vs Basetty Ganadeepthi1, this High Court held that there is no dispute about the fact that while considering transfer applications in matrimonial cases, Court has to consider the convenience of wife, but, at the same time, Court has also to balance convenience of both the parties.

7. Since this petition is filed for transfer on the ground of inconvenience and difficulty to the petitioner to travel and also the apprehended threat and a number of respondents also expressed their inconvenience and difficulty to travel the same distance in their advanced age facing more hardship, unlike in the normal course where a more lenient approach is adopted in favour of the woman as against a male counterpart, in the present case, the hardship of the res