other material to conclude that the petitioner/wife ispresently residing at Hyderabad." Even if the contention of the respondent/husband that the petitioner/wife is running a fashion boutique and she has mentioned in the Face Book Page of the said fashion boutique that her current city is Hyderabad is accepted, it is evident from the material placed on record that it is an online business and as such, it can be run from anywhere. There will be no mobility of goods physically. It appears that the petitioner/wife has shown her address as Hyderabad for the purpose of business. When the petitioner/wife has stated on oath that she is residing at Karimnagar, it cannot be disbelieved. Though the respondent/husband had stated in the counter that the petitioner/wife and his family members made an attempt to kill him on 30.05.2017 and that there is life threat to him at Karimnagar, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. Here, it is relevant to state that Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been amended in the year 2003, by insertion of proviso (iii)(a). The amended Section 19(iii)(a) of the Act gives special preference to the wife to file a petition and prosecute the same, before the Court within whose jurisdiction she resides. Law is well settled that in the cases of transfer of matrimonial disputes from one Court to another, convenience of the wife is of para mou nt importa nce. Thoug h sma ll inconvenience may be caused to the respondent/husband in attending the Court at Karimnagar, the convenience of the wife should be preferred and shall prevail over the inconvenience, if any, which may be caused to the husband. There is rro dispute
