KAKARLA MEENA KUMARI Vs. KAKARLA RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the report filed as to the service of notice. As per the postal track consignment, notice was delivered on the respondent on 03.11.2021. Respondent called absent. No representation.

(2.) This transfer CMP is filed under Sec. 24 of C.P.C. by the petitioner-wife against the respondent-husband for withdrawal of OP.No.11 of 2021 pending on the file of Court of Judge, Family Court, Khammam and to transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(3.) Perused the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, wherein at para No.3, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has also filed a case in Crime No.105 of 2021 before the Begumpet Women Police Station for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC. It is urged by the petitioner that the distance between Khammam and Hyderabad is more than 200 Kms. It is causing lot of difficulty to attend each and every date of hearing. Therefore, having regard to the settled principles of law, convenience of wife has to be given preference over the convenience of husband and that respondent-husband remained absent without representation. The petitioner is resident of Hyderabad.