ORDER:

The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the O.S.No.98 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Ananthapur, for trial.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 06.08.2020, in Suraj Grand Hotel, at Ananthapur Town, as per the Muslim Law and Caste Customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife is staying separately at her parents' house at Ananthapur Town. The petitioner pleaded that she filed a maintenance case against the respondent/husband vide F.C.O.P (MC).No.113 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Ananthapur, seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed O.S.No.98 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, under Section 307(3) of Mohammedean Law and Rule 123(V) of Dissolution of the marriage under Muslim Marriage Act, and the same is also pending for adjudication.

II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance for more than 300 Kms from Ananthapur to Kavali without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw the O.S.No.98 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Ananthapur.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Perused the material available on record.

5. The material on record primafacie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Ananthapur and she has instituted a case against the respondent/husband before the Judge, Family Court at Ananthapur, for seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband and the respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before the said Court on each and every adjournment. It is also relevant to say that the respondent/husband also filed O.S.No.98 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, under Section 307(3) of Mohammedean Law and rule 123 (V) of Dissolution of the marriage under Muslim Marriage Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Ananthapur and the distance between the Ananthapur and Kavali is more than 300 kms, since the petitioner being a woman depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel from Ananthapur to Kavali without any male support, and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition.

6. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA¹, held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed.”

(2000) 10 SCC 304

7. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha, [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627] held as follows:

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood