r . APHC010203942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 137 OF 2025 Between: Shaik Zulfia Sultana, W/o Mohammad Shabbir, Aged about 36 years, Occ :House Wife, R/o, D/No. GF-1, FF, Om Sai Ram Residency, Ayodhya Nagar, Madhurawada, Vishakhapatnam District ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Mohammed Shabbir, S/o Late Mohammed Shaida, Aged about 39 years, Occ; Working as SD Manager AP Fiber Net, R/o D/No.C-6, C- Block, Ram Mohan Enclave, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. ...Respondent/Petitioner 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 and transfer F.C.O.P.No.5 of 2025 from the Court of the Hon’ble Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada, Krishna District to the Hon’ble Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vishakhapatnam. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings, including appearance of the petitioner herein, in F.C.O.P.No.5 of 2025 from the Court of the Hon’ble Judge Family Court At Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vardhineedi Sai Kiran Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Mareedu Sasidhar The Court made the following order: 0^ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.137 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.05 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 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 Visakhapatnam on 30.01.2022, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with a male child aged about 1 1/2 years are staying at her parents’ house at Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Disha Urban Police Station under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.62 of 2023 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.2708 of 2023, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that she had also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.14 of 2023, on the file 2 > of the XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bheemunipatnam and a Domestic Case vide D.V.C.No.07 of 2024, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid cases before the competent Courts at Bheemunipatnam. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.05 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having a male child aged about 1 1/2 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of approximately more than 300 Kms from Visakhapatnam to Vijayawada for attending the Court proceedings before the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, 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.05 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 3. Heard Sri Vardhineedi Saikiran, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the matter is listed on today under the caption “For Orders”, there is 3 behalf of the respondent. Perused the material available no representation on on record. The material on record prrma fade goes to show that in view of the both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with a staying at her parents’ house at District and depending upon the mercy of her Criminal Case against the respondent/husband numbered as C.C.No.2708 of 2023, 4. matrimonial disputes between 1/2 male child aged about 1 years are Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam parents and she had lodged a vide Cr.No.62 of 2023 and the same was Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam on the file of the I and the same is pending for adjudication. Further, the petitioner had also filed the file of the XVI Additional a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.14 of 2023, on Domestic Case vide Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bheemunipatnam and a of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge D.V.C.No.07 of 2024, on the file and the respondent/husband is attending the Court before the competent Courts at Bheemunipatnam proceedings in the aforesaid cases Bheemunipatnam. The respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.05 of 2025, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under the file of the Judge on 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking for dissolution of marriage, of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER wife does not have sufficient Section The Apex Court in a case HEERA\ held by considering the fact that “if a funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then 6, the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed. ^ (2000) 10 see 304 4 The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows: 7. “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. ” 8. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides 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 that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.05 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.05 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.05 of 2025 to the Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, 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. 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 //TRUE COPY// sectW^icer To, 1. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam 3. The Judge, Family Coud, Vijayawada, Krishna District 4. The Family Court - curri - V Additional District Judge, Vishakhapatnam Vishakhapatnam district 5. One CC to Sri. Vardhineedi Sai Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. Mareedu Sasidhar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Stu nm HIGH COURT DATED:06/08/2025 CC TODAY ORDER TRCMP NO. 137 OF 2025 g( t t AUG 2025 o> ^^s,Curr(Mit ALLOWING THE TR.CMP