O R D E R:

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed memo before the Registry along with returned postal cover of the respondent with an endorsement that „addressee is not in the village, hence returned to the sendor‟, though, it was addressed to the respondent as per details furnished in HMOP No.210 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, hence it is deemed that notice has been served to the respondent.

2. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”), seeking transfer of HMOP No.210 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Tanuku of West Godavari District to Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Gudur of Nellore Judicial District.

3. The case of the petitioner/wife in brief is that her marriage with the respondent solemnized on 25.03.2016 in a function hall at Kanuru village of Peravalli mandal, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. The petitioner submits that out of wedlock, she blessed with two children, now aged 5 ‰ years, and 1 year 3 months respectively, and they both lived together at Visakhapatnam. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is having bad vices, harassed her on demand of additional dowry, and then she lodged a report before Station House Officer, Gudur Town Police Station, who registered the case against the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Then, the respondent filed HMOP No.210 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Tanuku, and the petitioner also filed MC No.780 of 2023 and DVC No.781 of 2023 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur. The petitioner also filed HMOP No.787 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Gudur for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending. The main contention of the petitioner is that as respondent necked her out from the matrimonial home, she joined in a college, where she is working and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, with which she is maintaining her children, as her father died long back, and her mother is suffering from ill-health. The petitioner submits that Tanuku town is at a distance of 450 kms from Guduru town, and she has to travel eight hours along with her two minor children to reach Tanuku town, where the respondent filed petition, seeking for divorce, as no person is there to look after the welfare of minor children, due to that it is difficult for her to travel from Gudur town to Tanuku town. She prays to allow the petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent though now he is residing at Visakhapatnam, intentionally filed petition, seeking divorce before the Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Tanuku to cause inconvenience to the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is having two minor children, and she is also working in a college for her sustenance, due to that it is difficult for her to attend the Court at Tanuku town. He prays to allow the petition.

5. Admittedly, now the petitioner along with her minor children is staying in her parents‟ house at Gudur, where she is said to be working in a college, and getting income of Rs.10,000/-per month. The contents of divorce petition shows that prior to marriage, they both lived at Visakhapatnam, and then with the consent of both sides elders, their marriage was performed on 25.03.2016. As petitioner being a woman, having minor children certainly, it is difficult for her to travel from Gudur town to Tanuku town to defend the divorce petition, filed by her husband. She also filed petition, seeking maintenance, and lodged report against the respondent, and then filed DVC, which are pending before the Courts at Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur. The petitioner filed HMOP No.787 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil