IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN TR.CMP No.113 of 2010 Between: Kalpana Jyothirmayi ... PETITIONER(S) and M. Raja Rajeswar …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY TR.CMP No.113 of 2010 ORDER: The marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place in the year 2001 and they were also blessed with two children. On account of the differences that have been arising between them they started living separately. Respondent is a resident of Hyderabad and the petitioner, together with her children is residing at Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District, along with her parents. The respondent filed O.P.No.44 of 2010 in the Family Court, Hyderabad. Petitioner seeks transfer of the same to the Family Court at Eluru, West Godavari District. The application is resisted by the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The O.P. filed by the respondent is for restitution of conjugal rights. When she appeared before this Court, the petitioner has also expressed her willingness to join the company of the respondent. If what is stated by her is true, the O.P. should have become redundant. After some counseling by this Court, the petitioner and respondent agreed to live together. It is however stated that the petitioner left for Jangareddygudem along with her parents and did not join the company of the respondent. Though normally this Court would lean in favour of women for transferring the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act to the Courts, within whose territorial jurisdiction they reside, the case on hand warrants a different approach. The O.P. is only for restitution of conjugal right and the petitioner did not state any reason for opposing the same. The proceedings do not need any prolonged trial. The Family Court, at the most has to take the evidence of both the parties and verify as to why the petitioner has any justification in not joining the company of the respondent. This can be completed in one or two hearings. The petitioner does not have to appear on every date of hearing in the O.P. The respondent can be required to meet the expenditure incurred by the petitioner for travelling. Hence, the Transfer CMP is dismissed. The learned Family Judge shall not insist on the presence of the petitioner on every date of hearing, except where it is needed for reconciliation or recording of her evidence. As and when the petitioner appears in the Court, the respondent shall be under obligation to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards expenditure. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 13th July 2010 CVRK