THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Tr.C.M.P.Nos.40 and 47 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both the Tr.C.M.Ps. are interconnected. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in Tr.C.M.P.No.40 of 2010, for the sake of convenience. Petitioners 2 and 3 are parents, petitioner No.4 is the brother and the respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent took place, on 30.04.2008. However, shortly thereafter, differences have arisen between them and they started living separately. The respondent submitted a complaint, under Section 498-A I.P.C., against the petitioners, before the Station House Officer, Pothinamallayyapalem P.S., and the same was registered as Crime No.476 of 2009. The respondent filed O.P.No.1511 of 2009 before the Additional Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the 1st petitioner, under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and O.P.No.1513 of 2009, against the petitioners, for recovery of the alleged dowry amount. The petitioners seek transfer of O.P.No.1513 of 2009 to the Family Court, Hyderabad. The 1st petitioner filed Tr.C.M.P.No.47 of 2010 with a prayer to transfer O.P.No.1511 of 2010 to the Family Court, Hyderabad. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are subjected to harassment in one form or the other, whenever they attended the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. It is also stated that the 1st petitioner is employed in a private firm at Hyderabad and it would be difficult for him to secure leave on all occasions. Notwithstanding the inconvenience that may have been caused to the petitioners, the inconvenience that would be caused to the respondent, in case the O.Ps., filed by her, are transferred to Hyderabad, cannot be ignored. The hardship caused to the petitioners can be mitigated to a certain extent by directing that their physical appearance shall not be required on every date of hearing, except when it is needed for recording of evidence, or counselling. Hence, both the Tr.C.M.Ps. are dismissed. It is, however, directed that the learned Additional Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall not insist on the appearance of the petitioners on every date of hearing, except where it is needed for reconciliation, or recording of evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:21.07.2010 GJ