ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. The wife-Rayaprolu Rajya Lakshmi had moved the present transfer C.M.P. under Section 24 of C.P.C. against the husband-Rayaprolu Ravindranadh Sarma praying for the relief of transfer of H.M.O.P. No. 264 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram to be tried along with O.P. No. 87 of 2002 on its file and to grant such other suitable reliefs.
2. The petitioner-wife filed an elaborate affidavit and several of the averments made in the affidavit touch upon the merits of the matter, which need not be gone into at the stage of deciding the transfer C.M.P. The respondent-husband filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations. The wife also filed a reply affidavit explaining certain of the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel representing the petitioner-wife had submitted that the power under Section 24 of C.P.C. being very wide, inasmuch as already the O.P. No. 87 of 2002 filed by the petitioner is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, taking into consideration the convenience of the wife, the O.P. filed by the respondent-husband i.e., H.M.O.P. No. 264 of 2002 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur may be transferred to the said Court and it will be in the interest of both the parties, if both the O.Ps. are disposed of by one and the same Court. The counsel also had drawn my attention to the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer C.M.P. in general and had pointed out the allegations at para Nos. 8 to 10 in particular. The counsel also had submitted that the petitioner is under the protection of her parents and she is not having any property of her own or any other means to sustenance, and hence, she is unable to travel from Veeravasaram to Guntur, which is at a distance of 160 K.Ms. The learned counsel also had pointed out the other allegations relating to the age of her father and the difficulty in taking the witnesses all the way from Veeravasaram to Guntur for giving evidence. The counsel also had drawn my attention to the serious allegations made at para No. 8 of the affidavit relating to the threats posed by the husband and Pattabhi and also the other persons whose names had been mentioned, and in view of the said threats, the petitioner is not dare enough to attend the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for the purpose of further prosecuting H.M.O.P. No. 264 of 2002 on the file of the said Court.
3. Per contra, Sri V. Parabrahma Sastri, learned counsel representing respondent-husband had taken me through the allegations in the counter affidavit in general and also the allegations made at para Nos.6, 7 and also Para Nos.8, 9 in particular and had submitted that only with a view to create problem to the husband, the wife had chosen a forum at Bhimavaram, which has no jurisdiction at all in view of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). The learned counsel also had submitted that the family of the petitioner is a rich family and all the allegations are made only with a view to get the H.M.O.P. transferred to the Court at Bhimavaram. The learned counsel also had pointed out that after the husband had instituted H.M.O.P. No. 264 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur praying for the relief of divorce, subsequent thereto, the wife had thought of filling O.P. No. 87 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the learned counsel also had explained that the parents of respondent are suffering from certain diseases and due to their old age, his presence is essential. The learned counsel also had submitted that the family of the petitioner-wife is a powerful family and the people are very aggressive in their place and they had also threatened the respondent with dire consequences if he happens to go over to Bhimavaram.
4. Heard both the counsel.
5. As already referred to supra, several allegations relating to the dowry, demand of dowry and the other aspects touching the merits of the matter may have to be decided after the evidence is let in by both the parties, and hence, these allegations need not be gone into at this stage. It is brought to my notice that H.M.O.P. No. 264 of 2002 was instituted by husband praying for divorce under Section 13 of the Act on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur on 3-9-2002 and subsequent thereto, the petitioner-wife instituted O.P. No. 87 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram on 21-10-2002 praying for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. Section 21-A of the Act deals with power to transfer petitions in certain cases and the said provision reads as here under:
'21-A. Power to transfer petitions in certain cases - (1) Where-
(a) a petition under this Act has been presented to a district court having jurisdiction by a party to a marriage praying for a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 or for a decree of divorce under Section 13, and
(b) another petition under this Act has been presented thereafter by the other party to the marriage praying for a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 or for a decree of divorce under Section 13 on any ground, whether in the same district court or in a different district court, in the same State or in a different State.
the petitions shall be dealt with as specified in Sub-section (2).
(2) In a case where Sub-section (1) applies,-
(a) if the petitions are presented to the same district court, both the petitions shall be tried and heard together by that district court;
(b) if the petitions are presented to different district courts, the petition presented later shall be transferred to the district court in which the earlier petition was presented and both the petitions shall be heard and disposed of together by the district court in which the earlier petition was presented.
(3) In a case where Clause (b) of Subsection (2) applies, the court or the Government, as the case may be, competent under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), to transfer any suit or proceeding from the district court in which the later petition has been presented to the district court in which the earlier petition is pending, shall exercise its powers to transfer such later petition as if it had been empowered so to do under the said Code.
6. A careful reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 21-A of the Act clearly shows that the said provision can be invoked under the specified circumstances mentioned in the provision i.e., in the proceedings relating to Sections 10 and 13 under the Act. In the present case, as can be seen from the facts, the proceedings which are pending before the respective Courts are under Sections 9 and 13 of the Act. Hence, the wife had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present transfer C.M.P. under Section 24 of C.P.C. In a decision in T. Ramadevi v. T.V. Subrahmanyam, : AIR1982AP10 it was held that Section 21-A of the Act is not exhaustive on subject and does not altogether abrogate power of transfer under Section 24 of C.P.C. The view expressed in Smt. Rama Kanta v. Ashok Kumar, was dissented. In a decision in G. Vijayalakshmi v. G. Rama Chandra Sekhara Sastry, : [1981]3SCR223 the Apex Court while dealing with the power of the Supreme Court to order transfer under Section 25 C.P.C. held that such power is not curtailed or excluded by Sections 20 and 21-A of the Act.
7. Now the question that remains to be decided is 'whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the transfer C.M.P.'?
8. It is no doubt true that while exercising the power of transfer under Section 24 of C.P.C., the question of jurisdiction may not come in the way. However, the counsel for respondent-husband had drawn my attention to Section 19 of the Act and had submitted that on any stretch of imagination and on facts, it cannot be said that Bhimavaram Court is having jurisdiation to entertain the O.P., and while deciding the transfer C.M.P., this aspect may also have to be taken into consideration. Section 19 of the aforesaid Act reads as here under:
'19. Court to which petition shall be presented.- Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction-
(i) the marriage was solemnized, or
(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition resides, or
(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or
(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.
9. The question of jurisdiction always necessarily need not be purely a question of law and at certain times it is a mixed question of fact and law. Since I am dealing with a transfer C.M.P., I am not inclined to record any finding relating to this aspect also at this stage. Be that as it may, as can be seen from the facts of the case, prima facie, I am satisfied that the petitioner-wife also hails from a well-to-do family, but however, specific allegations of threat had been made, no doubt, which had been denied by the husband. It is pertinent to note that the husband also had made such allegations and had given several details and had said that the family of petitioner-wife is a powerful family at Bhimavaram and there is a threat to his life in the event of his going over to Bhimavaram to attend the Court. Taking the over all facts and circumstances into consideration, and also keeping in view that wife's convenience should be definitely considered while deciding the transfer C.M.P., I am inclined to withdraw H.M.O.P. No. 264 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur and also O.P. No. 87 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram and transfer both the O.Ps. to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada, Krishna District for the purpose of disposal in accordance with law. In the light of the serious allegations made by both the spouses, in my considered opinion, this will be just and equitable order.
10. Accordingly, both the O.Ps. aforesaid, are withdrawn from the respective files of the Courts and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada to be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at an early date. The transfer C.M.P. is ordered accordingly to the extent indicated above. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, each party to bear their own costs.