Family Courts Act — Section 8 — Exclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction is Area-Specific — High Court’s Power of Transfer under Section 24 CPC Not Barred Exclusion under Section 8 Family Courts Act applies only to the “area” where a Family Court is established; civil courts in areas without a Family Court retain matrimonial jurisdiction — V. Sailaja v. V. Koteswara Rao; P. Jayalakshmi v. Revichandran. (Paras 13–14, extracted portions) High Court under Section 24 CPC may transfer: (i) from one Family Court to another; (ii) from Family Court to District Court; (iii) from District Court to Family Court; (iv) from Family Court to Civil Court in areas where no Family Court exists — No statutory bar. (Paras 13–14)

A. Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings — Section 24 CPC — Convenience of Wife — Hardship — Possibility of Conflicting Decisions

1. Wife has no independent income; husband earns about ₹1,00,000/- p.m.; wife must change two buses to reach Rajamahendravaram; both parties already attending Court at Kovvur; possibility of conflicting decisions if matters are tried in different Courts — Transfer justified.
   (Paras 2, 12)

2. Transfer petitions in matrimonial matters must be decided on the facts of each case, considering hardship to either spouse.
   (Para 5)

B. Matrimonial Litigation — Need for Expeditious Disposal — Family Courts Must Avoid Procrastination

3. Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida emphasises that Family Courts must avoid routine adjournments; “procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis” in matrimonial disputes.
   (Para 6)

4. Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reiterates that matrimonial litigation corrodes relationships; Court must proactively control proceedings to avoid undue delay.
   (Para 7)

C. Transfer Principles — Convenience of Wife Prevails (Settled Law)

5. Wife’s difficulty and presence of minor daughters can justify transfer — Vandana Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma.
   (Para 8)

6. Where transfer is refused, husband must bear travel and incidental expenses of wife — Neelam Bhatia v. Satbir Singh Bhatia.
   (Para 9)

7. “It is the wife’s convenience that must be looked at” — Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay.
   (Para 10)

8. Between husband and wife, the convenience of the wife must prevail — Sangeeta @ Shreya v. Prasant Vijay Wargiya.
   (Para 11)

D. Family Courts Act — Section 8 — Exclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction is Area-Specific — High Court’s Power of Transfer under Section 24 CPC Not Barred

9. Exclusion under Section 8 Family Courts Act applies only to the “area” where a Family Court is established; civil courts in areas without a Family Court retain matrimonial jurisdiction — V. Sailaja v. V. Koteswara Rao; P. Jayalakshmi v. Revichandran.
   (Paras 13–14, extracted portions)

10. High Court under Section 24 CPC may transfer:
    (i) from one Family Court to another;
    (ii) from Family Court to District Court;
    (iii) from District Court to Family Court;
    (iv) from Family Court to Civil Court in areas where no Family Court exists — No statutory bar.
    (Paras 13–14)

11. Court prefers the principle laid down in Sailaja’s case over CVM Prasuna on this issue.
    (Para 14)

E. Result

12. O.P. No.127/2019 (Rajamahendravaram) withdrawn and transferred to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, to be tried along with HMOP No.130/2019; Trial Court directed not to insist on respondent’s presence except when necessary.
    (Para 15)

13. Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed; no costs.
    (Para 16)