IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE c 311 PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NOr fifi OF 2024 Between: Katta Gowthami, W/o. Katta Eswar Chandra Sekhar, D/o. late Attili Kanaka Lingeswara Rao, Aged about 36 years, now residing at D. No. 6-117 Back Manda/ Church, Dowlaiswaram(V), Rajamahendravaram Rural ...PETITIONER AND Katta Eswar Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Katta Uma Nageswara Rao, Aged about Nilayam, Near Community Hall, Siddhartha Nagar, Chinna Musinaada, Pendurthi, Vishakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to order withdrawal of the F.C.O.P No.84 of 2023 from the Hon’ble Court of the Judge Family Court at Visakhapatnam to the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Judge lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order Stay of all further proceedings in F.C.O.P No. 84 of 2023 on the file of the Judge Family Court at Visakhapatnam. * t Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent: --- The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.65 of 2024 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that they have filed the proof of service memo along with the postal track consignment sheet before the Registry. As per he said track consignment sheet, it is noticed that the notice sent to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent before the Court below, was served on him on 28.02.2024. But, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. 2. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.84 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge Rajamahendravaram. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their I. marriage has been performed at Dowlaiswaram, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal on 17.12.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with two children. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties the petitioner/wife along with children are staying at her parents’ house at Dowaleswaram, Rajamahendravaram. The petitioner pleaded that 2 she had lodged a complaint before the Dowaleswaram Police Station under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.65 of 2023 against the respondent/husband and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.44 of 2023, on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.84 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 7(1) of the Family Court Act r/w Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having two children, depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 200Kms from Dowleswaram, Rajamahendravaram District to Visakhapatnam without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.84 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court-Cum- IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram. II. 4. Heard Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. C -- f 3 The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER 5. 1 held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient HEERA funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana 6. Karthik Sha^ held as follows: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, this Court is of the 7. considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.84 of 2023, on the file of the Judge Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram. ^ (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 7. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.84 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge Rajamahendravaram. The Judge Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.84 of 2023 to the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Family Court As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR s //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmahendravaram 2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Judge Family Court at Visakhapatnam. 4. The Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 5. One CC to SRI. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies Chp vna HIGH COURT DATED: 13/02/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.65 of 2024 ANDfi^ s 0 \ MAR 2C25 o..-, -i'Z Currsnt Sectiort ALLOWING THE TR.CMP. WITHOUT COSTS