Bandaru Syamsunder, J.

[1] This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC"), seeking transfer of FCOP No.1414 of 2021 from Family Court, Vijayawada to the Family Court, Guntur.

[2] The case of the petitioner/wife in brief is that her marriage with the respondent solemnized on 09.10.2019 in a temple at Chirala town of Guntur District, as per Hindu religious customs, usages and rites prevailing in their community in the presence of elders on both sides. The petitioner submits that after the marriage, she joined the respondent and the marriage was also consummated, but no child born to them, out of wed lock. It is the contention of the petitioner that from the beginning, due to incompatibility and temperaments between them, she and the respondent were quarrelling with each other, and since 17.11.2019 disputes arose between them, and then both have started living separately, and she has been residing in her mother's house at Guntur town. The petitioner submits that the respondent went to United States of America and then elders tried to settle the marital dispute, but it failed, due to that they both decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent, and filed a petition in FCOP NO.1414 of 2021 before the Family court, Vijayawada under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce by mutual consent, which is pending disposal. The petitioner also submits that she being only child to her mother, she has to look after day-to-day needs and welfare of her mother, who is suffering from old aged ailments, and she has been receiving threats from the family of the respondent, whenever visited the Court at Vijayawada in FCOP No.1414 of 2021. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the family of the respondent are blaming her that she is responsible for breaking of the marital bond, and as distance between Guntur to Vijayawada is around 38.2 kms she is not in a position to leave her ailing mother and difficult for her to attend the Court at Vijayawada. She prays to allow the petition.

[3] The respondent/husband, represented by his father, who is General Power of Attorney Holder filed counter, denying the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that he filed FCOP No.1414 of 2021 before Family Court, Vijayawada under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on mutual consent. He submits that after filing of divorce petition, a Memorandum of Understanding, dated 29.09.2021 entered between the parties, which is also acted upon and some amounts have been paid to the petitioner, by way of Bank deposit and the petitioner has to attend before the Court to file an affidavit accepting the Memorandum of Understanding for mutual consent divorce, and there are no grounds to allow the transfer petition. He prays to dismiss the petition.

[4] I have heard learned counsel Mr.P.Venkata Rao, representing on behalf of Mr.A.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife as well as Mr.K.Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the respondent/ husband.

[5] The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being a woman, who has to look after her old aged mother not in a position to attend the Court at Vijayawada, where the petition seeking divorce for mutual consent is pending. He would further submit that she is consistently receiving threats from the family of the respondent, due to that she is not in a position to attend the Court at Vijayawada, as she is apprehending physical harm. He prays to allow the petition.

[6] The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petition, which filed by both parties itself, is a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent, and now the petitioner after receiving some money from the respondent by way of Bank deposit, not intended to attend the Court and filed petition with false allegations. He prays to dismiss the petition.

[7] Now the point that emerges for consideration by this Court is:

"Whether the petition is maintainable either in law or on facts?"

[8] Point: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 24 of CPC, which reads as under:

"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal:-

(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or

(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

(ii)transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.

(2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which [is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.

(3) For the purpose of this section,-

(a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court;

(b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order.

(4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes.

(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it".

[9] It is no doubt true that it is consistent view of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts in India that in respect of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of wife has to be considered, but at the same time it has to be considered whether the contention of the petitioner/ wife, seeking transfer on the grounds mentioned in her petition are tenable can be accepted and we have to balance the convenience and inconvenience of the wife and also husband.

[10] In the present case, admittedly the petition has been filed by the petitioner and respondent represented by his father, who is General Power of Attorney Holder under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce by mutual consent. When the petition itself is filed by the parties seeking divorce by mutual consent, by the time admittedly the respondent left for United States of America, due to that he has been represented by his father, being General Power of Attorney Holder, by that time also may be same situation was prevailing, still the petitioner is able to attend the Court presented the petition seeking divorce by mutual consent. Now the petitioner made averments in her petition that she has to look after her old aged mother, but no specific ailment has been mentioned in the petition, and alleging that she has been receiving threats when she attended the Court at Vijayawada. There is no specific allegations made in the affidavit of the petitioner, and no specific dates have been stated in the petition when she attended the Court, when she received threats from the family of the respondent, which family member of the respondent threatened her. Admittedly, the distance between Guntur to Vijayawada is only 38.2 kms, and the petition which filed by the petitioner along with respondent, is a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent, due to that there is no necessity for the petitioner or the respondent to attend the Court frequently and their attendance before the Court is required whenever the Court asked.

[11] Therefore, this Court is of an opinion that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to Memorandum of Understanding said to be entered between the parties cannot be discussed and decided in the present petition, which has to be looked into by the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada at an appropriate stage, as per the procedure laid down under law.

[12] In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay granted if any, shall stand vacated. The learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada where FCOP No.1414 of 2021 is pending, directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, within Three (3) months from the receipt of Orders of this Court in the present Tr.CMP