APHC010183752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES, AT AMARAVATI B P 9C •P WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 135 OF 2025 Between: Smt Bethala Jency Hemalatha, W/o.P.William Dileep, aged about 30 years, Residing at D.No.3-57/C, Kumari Street, Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND Sri Pakerla William Dileep, S/o.Glads, Christian, aged 37 years. Private Employee, Residing at D.No.39-33-66-1-1, Madhavadhara, VUDA Layout, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER MIG-100, Phase-1, Petition filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to withdraw FCOP.No.143 of 2025 Court, at Visakhapatnam and transfer the Sessions Judge at Kakinada, East Godavari District. praying that in the may be on the file of Additional Family same to the Court of III Additional lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition filed 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 grant stay all further proceedings in FCOP.No.143 of 2025 on the file of Additional Family Court, at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the Transfer Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI HEMANTH KUMAR VENNA Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following ORDER : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.135 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo dated 16.06.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet is filed before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the track consignment sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him on 28.04.2025. Therefore, service held sufficient. None appeared for the respondent. 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.143 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the III Additional Sessions Judge at Kakinada. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; 3. I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Visakhapatnam on 14.08.2024, as per Christian Religious rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada, East Godavari District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a coijnplaint before the Mahila Police Station, Kakinada under sections 85, 2 115(2) and 351 (2) BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition vide FIR.No.88 of 2024 and the Act same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that she had lodged a complaint dated 30.01.2025, before the Protection Officer, Women and Kakinada, Kakinada District under Domestic Violence Act Child Welfare Department, and the same is pending for adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 150 Kms from Kakinada District to Visakhapatnam without any male support and that she constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2025 East Godavari was on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer the Sessions Judge at Kakinada. same to the III Additional 4. Heard Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. Perused the material available record. on 3 The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the 5. matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada, East Godavari District and she had filed a Criminal Case under Sections 85, 115(2) and 351(2) BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide FIR.No.88 of 2024 against respondent/husband and his family members and also filed a complaint dated 30.01.2025, before the Protection Officer, Women and Child Welfare Department, Kakinada, Kakinada District under Domestic Violence Act and the same is pending for adjudication. The respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. 6. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana 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 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, 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 7. petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws that in ‘ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 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 cohsidered view - - View request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the III Additional District Judge Court at Kakinada. that there are grounds to consider the F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2025 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2025 the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam transferred to the III Additional District Judge Court Family Court, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the 2025 to the III Additional District on , is hereby withdrawn and at Kakinada. The Additional case record in F.C.O.P.No.143 of Judge Court at Kakinada duly indexed 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 as no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. any pending and the Interim order SDI- SK.MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT^ REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT ON OFFICER To, 1. The Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The III Additional District Judge at Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. Smt Bethala Jency Hemalatha, W/o.P.William Dileep, Residing at D.No.3-57/C, Kumari Street, Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4. Sri Pakerla William Dileep, S/o.Glads, Private Employee, Residing at D.No.39-33-66-1-1, MIG-100, Phase-1, Madhavadhara, VUDA Layout, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. 5. One CC to Sri Hemanth Kumar Venna, Advocate [OPUC] 6. THREE CD COPIES BSV HIGH COURT DATED:18/06/2025 V. • ORDER TRCMP N0.135 of 2025 Z 0 5 JUL 2025 jn . iN4^nt Section^® Co ALLOWING THE TR CMP WITHOUT COSTS