APHC010195432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 134 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Battini @ Dadla Kavitha, W/o. Battini Tarakeswararao, D/o. Late Dadia Byragi, Aged about 45Years, Occ; Head Nurse At King George Hospital, R/o. D.No. 60-27-187, Industrial colony. New Building, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Battini Tarakeswararao, S/o. Appaalaswamy, Aged about 41 Years Occ; Present working as EMT (Medical Technician), Palasa 00-23, PeddaVeedhi District. , Door No. Srikakulam Kaijola Village, Palasa Mandal ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed there with, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw the H.M.O.P No. 18 of 2025 Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District and transfer the on the file of Senior Civil same to Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, Vishakapatnam District. -0- \A NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed in pleased to stay all further of Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District pending disposal of above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent: - The Court made the following order: praying that in the circumstances support of the petition, the High Court may be CPC, proceedings in H.M.O.P No. 18 of 2025 on the file the T % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.134 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service Memo has been field before the Registry, dated 30.06.2025, along with the postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website 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 20.06.2025. 2. Perused the Memo filed by the petitioner. 3. None appeared for the respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’. 4. 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 H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for trial. 5. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 22.05.2013, with the blessings of both side elders at Kaijola Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. During their wedlock f 2 ■0 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No,134of 2025 Dated 17.07,2025 period, the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband were blessed with two (2) children and later, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her two (2) children and she is working as a Head Nurse in Government Hospital at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner/wife pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the F.I.R.No.58 of 2025, for the spouses. respondent/husband, dated 01.04.2025, in offence punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending for investigation. II. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. 111. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contended that the petitioner being a woman and residing separately along with her two (2) children at Visakhapatnam, it is very difficult for her to attend the divorce case proceedings before the Court at Somepta, which is situated at a distance of than 200 Kms from Somepta to Visakhapatnam without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the more 3 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.134 of 2025 Dated 17.07.2025 respondent/husband,seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the 7. petitioner that he filed a memo vide U.S.R.No.62919 of 2025, along with the copy of the Aadhar Card of the respondent before the Registry on 30.06.2025, stating that the age of the respondent mentioned as ‘31 years’ instead of ‘41 years’in the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. The memo is recorded. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him, none 8. appeared for the respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’. Perused the material available on record. 9. The material on record prima fac/egoes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separatelyalong with her two (2) children and working as a Head Nurse in Government Hospital at Visakhapatnam.The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending 10. for adjudication. 4 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.134 of 2025 Dated 17.07.2025 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.” The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^held as follows; 11. 12. 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 counselfor 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, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife forseeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, 13. 1(2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.134 of 2025 Dated 17.07.2025 Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District and transfer the same to the file of the Judge Family Court, Visakhapatnam. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGI^RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. 4. The Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, Vishakapatnam District 5. Smt. Battini @ Dadia Kavitha, W/o. Battini Tarakeswararao, D/o. Late Dadia Byragi, Aged about 45Years, Occ: Head Nurse At King George Hospital, R/o. D.No. 60-27-187, Industrial colony. New Building, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam District. 6. Battini Tarakeswararao, S/o. Appaalaswamy, Aged about 31 Years, Occ: Present working as EMT (Medical Technician), Palasa, D.No.OO- 23, PeddaVeedhi, Kaijola Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. \ % 7. One CC to Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED: 17/07/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO. 134 OF 2025 ^Cof ANos;^ (il ? 9 JUL 2025 Co' •70 m 0)h Ciifi-ei'u oacnon •k Of= k /" ALLOWING THIS TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION