I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA:T1 MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 92 OF 2025 Between: Kothamasu @ Buma Deepthi, W/o.Venkata Ram Charan, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Aadhar No.663619220969, R/o. D.No.67-11-15, Marrichettu Center, Darsi Peta, Patamata, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND Kothamasu Venkata Ram Charan, S/o. Venu Gopal, Hindu, Aged about 32 years, Aadhar No. 576610966123, R/o. D.No.62-25-1226, 2nd line, Yadava Street, Old Guntur, Guntur town, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition Under Section 24 r/w Section 151 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to order withdrawal of FCOP No. 611 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Family Court Judge, Guntur, Guntur District and to transfer the same to the Court of the Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay of all further proceedings in FCOP. No. 611 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Family Court Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Y N ANJANEYACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent: SRI NAINA SHAIK The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.92 of 2025 ORDER: 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.611 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Vijayawada on 14.12.2016 as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her female child aged about 6 years are staying at her parents’ house at Patamata, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada under Section 85 of BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.722 of 2024 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.4102 of 2024, on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Domestic Violence Case Vide D.V.C.No.17 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Vijayawadaand a MaintenanceCase vide F.C.O.P.No.48of 2025, on the file i 2 .0 of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid cases before the competent Courts at Vijayawada. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.611 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having a female child aged about 6 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 40Kms from Vijayawada to Guntur without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.611 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Heard Sri Y.N.Anjaneyacharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Naina Shaik, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on 3. record. 4. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with a female child aged about 6 years are staying at her parents’ house at Patamata, Vijayawada, N.T.R.District. The respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.611 of y’ 3 2025, on the file of the Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. 5. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA 1 , held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient 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. 6. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows: “9. The cardinalprinciple for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice 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 a prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s i 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 laws 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 considered view 7. that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw ^ (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 F.C.O.P.No.611 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District and transfer the same to the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.611 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.611 of 2024 to the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada 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. Both the parties directed to appear before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, on 18.08.2025 at 10.30 a.m. There shall be no order as to costs. are As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. ^ Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU assistant registrar //true copy// SECTION OFFICER To 1. Kothamasu @ Buma ^|®Pg^'’,s4^0e36l^922O969!^R/o. D.No.67-11- Ma?richetJ""Snter.: Darsi' Peta, Patamata, Vnayawada. N.T.R. District. 15 isiL?vTS. sS;aI” o— 3. The Family Court Judge IV Additional District and Sessions Krishna District. 1 aNJANEYACHARYULU Advocate [OPUC] NAINA SHAIK Advocate [OPUC] Guntur, Guntur District. Judge (Family Court) 4. The Vijayawada 5. OneCCtoSRl. YN 6. One CC to SRI 7. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:16/06/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.92 of 2025 ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P.