ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. One Nandivlugu Lakshmi Bharati, W/o Nandivelugu Chandrasekhar filed the transfer CMP under Section 24 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'), for transfer of OP No. 69/2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and pass such other appropriate suitable order.
2. Nandivelugu Chandrasekhar, hereinafter referred to as the 'husband' filed O.P.No. 69/02 against Nandivelugu Bhagya Lakshmi, hereinafter referred to as 'the wife' for the relief of dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, and on 20.11.2002 the husband was present and on hearing for orders the matter was adjourned to 22.11.2002. As can be seen from the record, on 6.11.2002 it was recorded that 'the respondent notice through R.P. returned as refused. Notice through Court not yet received from Chittoor. Petitioner called absent. Respondent called absent. Service is sufficient. Set ex parte. For petitioners evidence call on 8.11.2002'. On 8.11.2002 PW1 was examined and for further evidence adjourned to 15.11.2002 and on 15.11.2002 PW2 was examined. However, the petitioner was absent for hearing and hence it was adjourned to 18.11.2002 and subsequent thereto 22.11.2002. On 22.11.2002, in view of the orders passed in CMP No. 21415/02 in Tr. CMP No. 428/2002 by this Court granting interim stay, no orders pronounced by the Court below and the OP was reopened and was further adjourned.
3. Sri Govinda Reddy, learned Counsel representing the wife-petitioner in Tr.CMP had taken me through the affidavit filed in support of the transfer CMP and also the reply affidavit and had submitted that in view of the facts the Court at Nuzvid has no jurisdiction at alt to entertain the said OP and the husband-respondent had thought of filing the said OP on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District only with a view to harass the wife. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the father of the wife is a retired employee and physically impaired person and the wife is living at the mercy of her parents and she cannot attend the Court at Nuzvid since she has no means to undertake the journey from Chittoor to Nuzvid and the wife apprehends danger to her life in the event of her attending the Court at Nuzvid. The learned Counsel further submitted that the very fact that the unfortunate wife was set ex parte shows that she was unable to attend the Court. But, however, the fact remains that she was set ex parte and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 had been recorded. But, however, in view of the order of interim stay granted by this Court which was communicated to the Court below, no ex parte decree was passed and the matter was reopened and hence it cannot be said that the proceedings were terminated and in view of wide powers conferred on the Court under Section 24 of the Code definitely the said proceeding can be withdrawn and transferred as prayed for. The learned Counsel also had explained what will be the focus of a party even after the party is set ex parte in a particular proceeding. Strong reliance was placed on Sangam Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotyah, : [1955]2SCR1 . He had also placed reliance on a judgment in Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma v. Mulkluri Murlidhar Rao, : AIR1970AP194 , and had submitted that existence of dispute regarding jurisdiction will not operate as bar to order transfer. The learned Counsel further had drawn my attention to the judgment rendered in V. Sailaja v. V. Koteswara Rao, : 2003(1)ALD673 , and contended that in ordering transfer it is the convenience of the wife that has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the learned Counsel had submitted that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and also in the light of the respective positions of the wife and husband, the transfer has to be ordered.
4. Per contra, Sri Rama Rao, learned Counsel representing the husband had initially raised an objection that the wife who was set ex parte in the OP has no right to maintain the transfer petition unless she files an application to set aside the ex parte order before the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. The learned Counsel also submitted that having received the notice or having knowledge about the proceedings the wife was not interested to contest the litigation and only with a view to put the husband into trouble or to procrastinate the proceedings the present transfer petition was thought of. The learned Counsel also had further submitted that no doubt the powers under Section 24 of the Code are wide but that does not mean at this stage transfer of the proceedings can be ordered. Elaborate submissions were made relating to the expression 'at any stage' and reliance was placed on Mula Naramma v. Mula Rangamma, AIR 1926 Madras 359. The learned Counsel had also drawn my attention to the judgment in K.Pappamal v. S.Bhagavathy, : AIR1985Ker91 .
5. Heard both the learned Counsel. The facts in brief are as narrated herein: The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 19.4.2000 at the house of the junior paternal uncle of the wife at Pedavadlamudi Village of Guntur District and thereafter the wife had joined her husband at Hyderabad where he was working in Ushakiran Movies Pvt., Ltd. It is pleaded by her that her husband and in-laws subjected her to all sorts of illtreatment and harassment for the sake of dowry and her parents expressed their inability to meet their demands and as a result of the same ultimately she was driven out of the matrimonial home and several mediations held in this regard also became futile. It was further stated by the wife that the Court at Nuzvid had no jurisdiction at all since the marriage was solemnized at Pedavadlamudi of Guntur District and both of them at last resided at Hyderabad where her husband was working in Ushakiran Movies Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad. It was also stated that the wife is living at the mercy of her father who is a retired employee and also physically impaired and not in a position to move to any other place and she cannot attend the Court alone and she has also no means to undertake the journey from Chittoor to Nuzvid. No doubt the wife also pleaded apprehension of danger to her life in the event of her attending the Court at Nuzvid.
6. A counter has been filed by the husband denying all the allegations and also making several allegations against the wife and these entire allegations in fact touched upon the merits and demerits of the matter which may have to be decided in the main OP. In substance the stand taken by the husband is that the father of the wife is hale and healthy, all is well with that family and certain mediations were also held, but however, the fault is on the part of the wife and not on his side. In view of the counter-affidavit filed duly touching the merits of the matter most probably the wife thought of a reply-affidavit again denying the said allegations and as already stated by me these are all matters which are to be ultimately decided while deciding the main OP but not at this stage.
7. No doubt the arguments in detail had been advanced on the aspect of jurisdiction of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Nuzvid. In Tirumala Reddy Mahalakshmamma v. Mulkluri Muralidhara Rao, (supra) it was held by this Court that the existence of dispute relating to transfer will not operate as bar on the part of the High Court while ordering transfer under Section 24 of the Code. In K. Pappamal v. S. Bhagavathy (supra) it was held that the power under Section 24 of the Code to transfer the proceedings from one Court to another has to be exercised on consideration of all relevant aspects and an allegation that the transferee Court has no jurisdiction to try the proceedings would not bar the High Court in exercising the power of transfer under Section 24, because the question whether the transferee Court has jurisdiction or not would be ascertainable only after evidence on that aspect is adduced and the question considered in all its aspects.
8. Whatever, may be the position, in the light of the wide powers conferred under Section 24 of the Code, there cannot be any doubt that definitely the power can be exercised in transferring a proceeding irrespective of the question of transfer if otherwise the Court is satisfied that it is a fit matter where a proceeding has to be transferred. In the present case, the matter does not stop there the reason being that before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid the wife was set ex parte. The husband was examined as PW1 and the evidence of PW2 was also recorded. But however, in view of the fact that the husband was not present the matter was adjourned and the orders could not be pronounced and hence a decree was not passed. So the matrimonial proceeding did not come to an end by passing a decree and at that stage since the order of interim stay granted by this Court had been communicated, the matter was reopened. Much stress was laid by both the Counsel on the interpretation of the words 'at any stage' in Section 24 of the Code. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in Mula Naramma v. Mula Rangamma (supra) to convince this Court that at any stage cannot be taken as a belated stage especially when the evidence was recorded and ex parte decree was about to be passed. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the facts of the case reported in the above decision wherein withdrawal of part heard case in the context of the prejudice of a Judge against party's pleader had been refused to be transferred.
9. In Sangam Singh v. Election Tribunal (supra) while dealing with the scope and ambit of Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code, the Supreme Court held that that Order 9 Rule 7 of the code provides that if at an adjourned hearing the defendant appears and shows good case for his previous non-appearance he can be heard in answer to the suit as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance and this cannot be read to mean: that he cannot be allowed to appear at all if he does not show good cause and all it means that he cannot be relegated to the position he would have occupied if he had appeared and if a party does appear on 'the day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, he cannot be stopped from participating in the proceedings simply because he did not appear on the first or some other hearing'.
10. There cannot be any quarrel regarding the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Supreme Court. Here is the case where the wife was set ex parte and the husband was examined as PW1 and PW2 was also examined. However, orders could not be pronounced and the matter was reopened consequent on the order of interim stay granted by this Court. Whether such a proceeding can also be transferred is the question which had been argued by the both the Counsel. The words 'at any stage' definitely include all the stages till the proceedings are terminated. May be the wife could have chosen to appear before the said Court and could have made an application to set aside the ex parte order. Certain reasons and circumstances were explained under which the wife was unable to go over to Nuzvid. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances and also in the light of the fact that while ordering transfer, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration as held in V, Sailaja v. V. Koteswara Rao (supra). In my opinion that the interpretation of the words 'at any stage' in Section 24 of the Code definitely will not come in the way of this Court in ordering transfer in view of the fact that the matrimonial proceeding had not resulted in its termination by making the order of ex parte decree and hence I am of considered opinion that though the stage may be styled as a belated stage, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances I am inclined to order the Transfer C.M.P. and accordingly, this Court makes the following order:
11. O.P. No. 69/2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for purpose of disposal in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the wife is at liberty to move appropriate application for getting the order already passed set aside if she is so advised in this regard.
12. The Transfer CMP is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.