1 APHC010171832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI I 'f WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 124 OF 2025 I Between: Pujitha Jeeri, D/o. Mohan Reddy, W/o. Varun Jeeri, aged 32 Homemaker, R/o. H. No. 21. years. Raja Street, Near Vinayaka Temple Settipalli, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District - 517506. ...Petitioner AND Varun Jeeri, S/o. Appala Swamy, aged 37 years. Software Engineer, R/o. D. No. 19-10-19, Nellimukku, R.H. Colony, Peddagantyada, Visakhpatnam - 530044 ...Respondent Petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw FCOP No. 62 of 2025 from the file of Hon’ble Court of the Judge, Family Court Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Hon’ble Court of the Judge, Family Court, Tirupati. « *v lA NO: 1 OF 2025 ! ( 5 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 all further proceedings in FCOP No. 62 of 2025 on the file of Hon'ble Court of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam including appearance of the petitioner herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Soora Venkata Sainath Counsel for the Respondent: Sri G.Sai Lochan The Court made the following order: i t % 'i i .} } 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.124 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘the C.P.C.’) seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Tirupati, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, she is medically incapacitated, suffering from severe upper back pain and has been diagnosed with Cervical Myofascial Dysfunction, as per the medical opinion and ongoing treatment at Rothman Orthopedics. The petitioner is financially distressed, having no independent source of income and is solely dependent on the meagre support extended by her father and her savings bank account balance is stated to be approximately Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred Only). II. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband is financially well-off, drawing a substantial annual salary from employment in the United States, amounting to several lakhs of rupees. Despite his affluent financial status, the respondent has persistently demanded V6KR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.l24 of 2025 Dated 09.07.2025 2 additional dowry and has subjected the petitioner to harassment multiple occasions due to her family's inability to meet such unlawful demands. Nevertheless, the petitioner, with utmost respect for the sanctity of marriage, expresses her intention to preserve the marital relationship and desires to lead a life with the respondent/husband based on mutual respect and marital harmony. III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. The Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is located at a distance of approximately 749 kilometers from the petitioner’s nearest railway station at Renigunta, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner submits that such a long-distance travel would cause her considerable hardship and practical inconvenience, particularly in view of her medical condition. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no relatives or known persons in Visakhapatnam to provide shelter or support during the pendency of the proceedings. Furthermore, the cost of accommodation in a metropolitan city like Visakhapatnam would impose on IV. i VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.l24 of 2025 Dated 09.07.2025 5 3 Visakhapatnam would impose an additional financial burden, which the petitioner is unable to bear in her present circumstances. Hence, this petition is filed. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 3. Perused the material available on record. 4. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER - HEERA\ 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.” 5. 6. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA^, held as follows: “9. The cardinal principles 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 prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally. ^(2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.l24 of 2025 Dated 09.07.2025 it is the wife’s considering transfer. convenience which must be looked at while 7. On considering the submissions appearing for both sides and in case laws and on considering the facts in matrimonial proceedings, the into consideration than that of the i made by the learned counsel view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid and circumstances of the case that convenience of the wife has to be taken inconvenience of the husband and petitioner/wife has been staying separately at her parents' house at Tirupati and she is suffering from severe upper back pain and has been diagnosed with Cenrical Myofascial Dysfunction, it is very difficult to travel from Tirupati to Visakhapatnam which i kms and therefore, I am of the considered IS situated at a distance of more than 700 view that there are justifiable petitioner/wife,seeking for grounds to consider the request made by the withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025 at Visakhapatnam and transfer the Tirupati. Further, . on the file of the Judge, Family Court same to the Judge, Family Court at on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the respondent/husband is a software employee and is currently residing in United States of America (USA) and therefore, it is desirable to dispense with the personal attendance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025 the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam on before the transferee VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.l24 of 2025 Dated 09.07.2025 5 Court. The learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati, is hereby instructed to permit the respondent herein i.e. the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, through virtual mode at the stage of re-conciliation and not to insist the personal appearance of the respondent herein, as long as his counsel on record is available except on the date of recording his cross-examination before the transferee Court. 8. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court at Tirupati. The learned F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, to the Judge, Family Court at Tirupati, 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. Further the personal attendance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e.. Judge, Family Court at Tirupati. The learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati, is hereby instructed to permit the respondent herein i.e. the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, through virtual mode at the stage of re-conciliation and not to insist the personal appearance of the respondent herein, as long as his counsel on VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.l24of 2025 ^ Dated 09.07.2025 ^ 6 record is available except on the date of recording his cross-examination before the transferee Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judge, Family Court: Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Judge, Family Court: Tirupati, Chittoor District. One CC to Sri Soora Venkata Sainath Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri G.Sai Lochan Advocate [OPUC] THREE CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. SAM AL HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 4 ORDER TRCMP No. 124 of 2025 / & g 19 JUI 2025 m 3' t c ■* w cne*. '3\ ■y' ;r: ALLOWING THE Tr.C.M.P