ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. This petition is filed seeking transfer of O.P. No. 3/2001 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, on the ground that the petitioner has no means to travel all the way from Kavali to Bapatla (sic. from Bapatla to Kavali) for attending every hearing of the case, and also on the ground that a criminal case in C.C. No. 13/2000, based on a report given by her against the respondent under Section 498-A IPC, is pending in the court of the Magistrate at Bapatla, and that she also filed a petition in M.C. No. 7/2002 for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla.
2. The case of the respondent is that after the petitioner lodged a complaint against him under Section 498-A IPC, he filed a petition before the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, and in pursuance of the orders passed therein, when he went to the court at Bapatla to surrender himself before the court, and after he was released on bail on surrender and was coming out, he was attacked by the brothers and relations of the petitioner, and so, he gave a sworn statement before the learned Magistrate, and the learned Magistrate ordered investigation by police, which is still pending, and if the case is transferred to Bapatla, he would be greatly inconvenienced. He undertook to meet the expenses of not only the petitioner but also of an attendant to escort the petitioner to the court at Kavali from Bapatla.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since two cases i.e., C.C. No. 13/2000, under Section 498-A IPC, registered on the complaint given by the petitioner, and M.C. No. 7/2002 filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance, are pending in the courts at Bapatla, if the O.P. is transferred from Kavali to the court at Bapatla, respondent would not be inconvenienced, and, on the other hand, it is very difficult for the petitioner, who is a lady, to travel all the way from Bapatla to Kavali, and so, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, the O.P. be transferred from Kavali to Bapatla. He also contended that as the brother of the respondent is a practising Advocate at Kavali, none of the Senior or Junior Advocates, at Kavali are accepting the brief of the petitioner, and so the petitioner had to engage a relatively Junior Advocate and to enable the petitioner hiring the services of a local Senior Counsel and conduct her defence it is necessary to transfer the OP to Bapatla. He relied on Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, . Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, , and Archana Singh v. Alok Pratap Singh, in support of his said contentions.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that pendency of criminal cases at Bapatla, is not a ground for transfer of the OP from Kavali to Bapatla, that too, because the respondent apprehends danger to his life at the hands of the relatives of the petitioner. He contended that since close relatives of the petitioner are practising Advocates at Bapatla, respondent also might have to face the difficulty allegedly incurred by the petitioner, i.e., not having the benefit of a Senior Counsel. He relied on G. Chinna Swamy Naidu v. K. Padmanabhaiah, and Saraswati Bai v. Acharya Ved Bhushan, .
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no Senior Advocate came forward to accept the vakalat of the petitioner cannot be believed, because such ground was not taken in the affidavit filed in support of this Tr.C.M.P. In her reply affidavit only petitioner chose to state that she is not having the benefit of a Senior Counsel. The Certified Copy of the Proceedings Sheet in the O.P. produced before (sic. by) the learned counsel for respondent shows that after service of summons in the O.P. on her, petitioner appeared through P.Y. Giri and S.S.R., Advocates, on 8-6-2001, and filed counter on 23-8-2001. Thereafter the case underwent several adjournments. After reconciliation efforts by the court failed, the enquiry in the O.P. was taken up on 23-1-2002, when respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. The case was adjourned to 27-2-2002 for his cross-examination at the request of the counsel for petitioner in the trial court. Since on 27-2-2002 also the counsel for petitioner in the trial court sought an adjournment, the case was adjourned to 22-3-2002. On 22-3-2002, a Memo that stay was granted by this court in this Tr.C.M.P. was filed. If the inability of the petitioner to engage a Senior Counsel is true, she would have immediately after service of summons and before the filing of counter in the O.P. and before trial was taken up in the O.P. filed a petition for transfer on that ground. The fact that she instructed two advocates to file Vakalat on her behalf, filed counter and after trial was taken up sought adjournment for cross-examination of P.W. 1, shows that handicap alleged by her is not real and so the brother of the respondent practising as an Advocate at Kavali is not, and cannot be, a ground for transferring the O.P. from Kavali to Bapatla. Similarly the fact that two cases are pending in the Magistrate Court at Bapatla also is not, and cannot be, a ground for transfer of the O.P., from Kavali to Bapatla.
6. In Mona Aresh Goel’s case (1 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was transferred from Bombay to Delhi, because the wife, aged 22 years claimed that she who has no independent income cannot undertake travel from Delhi to Bombay to contest the proceedings, because her parents also are not in a position to bear the travel expenses and since she cannot also stay alone at Bombay, after travelling all the way from Delhi. The distance between Bapatla and Kavali is less than 300 Kms. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that those two places are in adjacent Districts, and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation plies a number of buses between the two places at frequent intervals. It is not difficult for the petitioner to attend court at Kavali and return to Bapatla on the same day.
7. In Geeta Heera (2 supra), the case was transferred from Saharanpur, U.P., to Karnal, Haryana, since the wife alleged danger to her life, if she were to visit Saharanpur in connection with the proceedings, and also because she has no sufficient funds to travel from Karnal to Saharanpur. It is not the case of petitioner that she apprehends danger to her life at Kavali.
8. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent thaf he was attacked by the relatives of the petitioner when he went to Bapatla. So, the said decision is not of help to the petitioner.
9. In Archana Singh (3 supra), on petition by the wife the case was transferred from Thane (Bombey) to Varanasi, the permanent place of residence of the parents of the wife, because she alleged that it would be difficult for her to travel all the way to Thane from Patna with her small child and also because she cannot meet the travel expenses. The facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of that case. Hence, this decision also is of no help to the petitioner.
10. Since this petition is filed after chief-examination of the respondent was completed and after petitioner taking time to cross-examine him, in my considered opinion this petition is filed only with a view to harass the respondent, and not on the ground of any inconvenience of the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs.
11. The petitioner is at liberty to file a petition before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for travel expenses to her and her escort, as offered by the respondent in his counter.