ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides.
2. The petitioner-wife has filed this application for transfer ofOP.No.231 of 1996 which is filed for divorce, pending on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet, Guntur District on the ground that she has also filed an application for maintenance before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet vide MC No.32 of 1996 as also OP No.142 of 1997 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet on the ground that she is a poor lady and the distance between Narsaraopet and Hyderabad is about 350 KMs. and it is not possible for her to contest the case at Hyderabad.
3. This application is opposed mainly on the ground that the respondent-husband had filed a petition for divorce in OP No.231 of 1996 in the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, at Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District earlier than the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in OP. No.142 of 1997 by the petitioner-wife and, therefore, by virtue of Section 21-A of Hindu Marriage Act, subsequent petition under the Hindu Marriage Act should be transferred to the Court where the earlier petition under the same Act is pending.
4. In the case of G. Vijayalakshmi v. G. Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry, : [1981]3SCR223 , the Apex Court has observed that Section 25 of the CPC as amended by Act 104 of 1976 confers for the first time wide and plenary powers on the Supreme Court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings. Section 21-A which was introduced prior to CPC Amendment Act of 1976 cannot therefore, be taken to exclude the power of transfer conferred upon the Supreme Court by present Section 25 CPC. The Apex Court further observed that even assuming that Section 25 CPC is not procedural and is a part of the substantive law, the jurisdictionconferred on the Supreme Court by Section 25 is not in any way affected by Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
5. On the opinion of Bombay High Court in Priyavari Mehta v. Priyanath Mehta, : AIR1980Bom337 , as also the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Ramakanta v. Ashok Kumar, , the Supreme Court observed that their opinion that the effect of Section 21-A ofHindu Marriage Act is joint or consolidated hearing or trials of petitions other than those mentioned in that section not being permissible, the powers under Sections 23 - 25 of the Code cannot be exercised for transfer of petitions for a consolidated hearing of the petitions not contemplated by that Section, is not correct opinion.
6. On same parity of reasoning; in my view, the powers conferred on the High Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are not curtailed or excluded either by Section 21 and Section 21-A of Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier petition under the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be transferred has no force.
7. It is not out of place to mention that the respondent-husband has to contest the case before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet by going to that place and this case under Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act can not be transferred to Hyderabad. When husband is contesting that case at Narsaraopet, it appears to be convenient to the petitioner as also to the respondent to contest OP No.231 of 1996 and OP. No.142 of 1997 at Narsaraopet only. There is also second reason. The petitioner is an unemployed woman and, therefore, it appears to be inconvenient for her from contesting the case at Hyderabad by covering a distance of about 300 KMs.
8. For the fore-going reasons, the petition is allowed. It is ordered that OP. No.231 of 1996 pending on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, at Kothapet,Ranga Reddy District be withdrawn from his file and be transferred it to the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Narsaraopet, Guntur District, for disposal accordingly to law along with OP No.142 of 1997. No costs.