APHC010216852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 31 OF 2n?fi Between: Kotapati Ramakrishna, S/o.Malakonda Rayudu, aged about 44 years, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.D.No.32-54-245 Road, Opp.Vignan School, Ongole, Prakasam District. NGO Colony, Kurnool ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER AND 1. Kotapati Anusha Chowdary @ Yalavarthi Anusha Chowdary, W/o.Kotapati Rama Krishna, D/o.Late Yalavarthi Sambasiva about 40 years, R/o.D.No.14-25-16/22 Rao, aged 3rd Floor, Nagamalli Enclave Krishna Nagar, Opposite Z.P Office Presently R/o.D.No.3-181-A, Chowdary Nilayam, NGO Colony, Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. 2. Kotapati Karthikeya Chowdary, S/o.K.Ramakrishna, years, 2 aged about 13 and natural 3rd Floor, Nagamalli Opposite Z.P Office, Maharanipeta, Presently R/o.D.No.3-181-A, Chowdary Nilayam, NGO Colony, Kurnool Road, Ongole, Prakasam nd respondent being minor rep.by his mother Guardian 1st respondent. R/o.D.No. 14-25-16/22, Enclave, Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam. District. r 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, r Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Rdtftion filed under Section 407 of Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated High Court may be pleased to withdraw the / # and Section 447 of BNSS in the affidavit filed therewith the F.C.O.P No.315 of 2025 pending on the file Court of Judge, Family Courf-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and transfer the same to Court of any other competent Court in Family Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District Ongole, Prakasam District. or lA NO: 1 OF Petition filed under Section 407 (6) of Cr.PC and Section 447 (6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support Of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in F.C.O.P No.315 of 2025 pending Family on the file of Court of Judge, Judge, Court-cum-V Additional Visakhapatnam District pending disposal appearance of the petitioner. District Visakhapatnam, of the above Tr.CrI.P including the Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 CHILLAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : The Court made the following ORDER : & 2 : SRI ASHOK KUMAR ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.31 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner/husband filed the present petition under Sections 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 447 of BNSS), seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.315 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court- cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer to the Family Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: 2. The marriage of the petitioner with 1®* respondent was performed on 15.08.2009 at Sai Function Hall, Ongole and they lived together till 2 week of June, 2015 and later the petitioner and 1®‘ respondent are living separately since 2'^'^ week of June, 2015. Later, the petitioner went to Denmark for doing job work and the petitioner tried his best for reconciliation with the 1®* respondent by visiting the house of the 1 respondent as and when the petitioner came to India. But, all the efforts are futile, as the marriage was irretrievably broken and there are no chances of reunion and that the petitioner herein filed F.C.O.P.No.161 of 2021 before the Family Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole under Section 13(1 )(1 a)(1 b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (i) nd St nd The petitioner further pleaded that the 1®‘ respondent/wife and 2 respondent/son, aged about 13 years, filed F.C.O.P.No.315 of 2025 before the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- to the 1®‘ respondent herein and Rs.1,00,000/- to the 2^^ respondent herein. The petitioner further pleaded that since divorce case proceedings are pending before Family Judge, Ongole, to avoid ' multiplicity of proceedings, the F.C.O.P.No.315 of 2025 on the file of (ii) 2 the Judge Family Court-cum-V Additional Visakhapatnam, filed by the wife District Judge, may be transferred to Family Judge, Ongole. 3. Heard Sri Ayesha Azma r heard Sri Ashok Kumar Chillapalli, learned 4. The learned counsel for the that there are the same may be dismissed. The material S, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents. respondent Nos.1 and 2 would no merits in the transfer application filed contend by the petitioner and 5. on record prims facie goes to show that due to matrimonial disputes in between both the parties i respondent, the 1 l e., petitioner and 1 son aoed ah , r Visakhapatnam along with minor 2 aged about 13 years and the 2« respondent is also school going child The respondent approached the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam with a specific plea that herself and her minor son, aged about 13 years are are seeking monthly unable to maintain themselves maintenance from the petitioner/husband herein and that they 6. The Apex Court i Karthik Sha^ held as follows; in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana 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 suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial Courts are called the transfer of matters, wherever 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 umbrella they are seeking their sustenance protective to life. Given the prevailing 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 3 socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generaliy, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 7. It was represented by both sides counsel on record that the petitioner herein is a Software employee and currently he is staying at Denmark and the minor son of the petitioner and 1"* respondent i.e., 2"'^ respondent herein, aged about 13 years, is prosecuting studies at Visakhapatnam and they approached the Family Court for seeking monthly maintenance from the petitioner/husband herein for their livelihood. Therefore, in those circumstances it is not justified to consider the request of the petitioner and that the transfer criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if orddr granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. any pending and the Interim SDI- B.PRASADARAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judge Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. One CC to Sri Ayesha Azma S, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Ashok Kumar Chillapalli, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge at BSV TAC HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 ORDER TRCRLP NO. 31 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE TR.CRLP WITHOUT COSTS