APHC010238032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA JRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 155 OF 2025 KRISHNA RAO Between: Vanapalli (Gowri) Lalitha, W/o V. Vasudeva f Occ: Housewife/ Unemployee, R/o D.No.22-92, China Gadili, Visakhapatnam-530040. Rao, Hindu, aged 36 years, j Near Sai Baba Temple, ...Petitioner AND Vanapalli Vasudeva Rao, S/o Late Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 40 , R/o Kotha Road Junction, Amadalavalasa Road/Mandal, Srikakulam years, Occ: Site Supervisor, Dr. Reddys Lab, Pydi Bheemavaram Sri Krishna Buildings, 1st Floor, Gopinagar Backside of CPF Towers District. ...Respondent 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 transfer the HMOP.No.49 of 2025 from the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Srikakulam to Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam. 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 in HMOP.No.49 of 2025 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Srikakulam. Counsel for the Petitioner: P Vijaya Kumari, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A.Ravi Shankar, Advocate The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.155 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 transfer of H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, 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 and their marriage was performed on 20.12.2023, at Srikakulam as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs and later, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner/wife pleaded that she filed F.C.O.P.No.2328 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and she also filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.93 of 2024 ono the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam, under Section 23(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the said two (2) cases are pending for adjudication against the respondent/husband. 2 VGKR, Ji Tr.C.M.P.No.155 of 202^ Dated 17.07.202^ The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that to caus^ inconvenience to the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband had file^i H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge!, Srikakulam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. I i III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contended that the petitioner being a woman and residing separately and depending upon the mercy of h^r parents at Visakhapatnam, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings before the Court at Srikakulam, which is situated at a distande of more than 100 Kms from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against tlie respondent/husband, seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2025 on the file bf the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, to the Principal Senior Civil Judgp, Visakhapatnam. II. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. Perused the material available on record. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial i disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Visakhapatnam and she has instituted a case i.e., F.C.O.P.No.2328 of 2024 on the I file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, uncj 4. 5. er 3 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P,No.155 of 2025 Dated 17.07.2025 Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication against the respondent. The material on record further reveals that subsequent to the filing of restitution of conjugal rights by the petitioner/wife at Visakhapatnam, the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 6. 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 7. 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 1(2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 VGKR OCC£> Tr.C.M.P.No.155of2025 Dated 17.07.20^ prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s \ convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. ” | It is well settled that when the restitution of conjugal rights case filed by ttie petitioner is pending before one Court and the divorce petition which is filed by tl^e I respondent/husband is pending before another Court, both the cases have to i>e tried by the same judge, to avoid conflict of decisions and also considering the othjer reasons mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner that she has been residing separately at Visakhapatnam and depending upon the mercy of her parents, in vi6w 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 groundsjto consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for transfer I of H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam,! to the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 8. 9. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed^nd the H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Jud^e, Srikakulam,is hereby withdrawn and transferred to theFamily Court-cum-V Additiohal District Judge, Visakhapatnam.The learnedPrincipal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.49 of 2025,to thefile of the Farfiily 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 bf a 5 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.155 of 2025 Dated 17.07.2025 possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, on 12.08.2025, at 10.30 a.m. There shall be no order as to costs. a copy -cum- As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// njj '' C SE OFFICER To, 1. Principal Senior CivilJudge Court, Srikakulam 2. Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam. 3. Vanapalli (Gowri) Lalitha, W/o V. Vasudeva Rao Hindu, aged 36 years, Occ: Housewife/ Unemployee. R/o D.No.22-92, Near Sai Baba Temple, China Gadili, Visakhapatnam-530040. 4. Vanapalli Vasudeva Rao, S/o Late Srinivasa Rao years, Occ: Site Supervisor, Dr. Reddys Lab, Pydi Bheemavaram Sri Krishna Buildings, 1st Floor, Gopinagar, Backside of CPF Towers, Amadalavaiasa Road/Mandal District. Hindu, aged 40 R/o Kotha Road Junction, Srikakulam 5. One CC to Sri P.Vijaya Kumari, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri A.Ravi Shankar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies GPC sree 'ir'' HIGH COURT DATED: 17/07/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO. 155 OF 2025 ANOT^ I Jftjui Toas ^ . Current Section . ^ C9 ALLOWING THIS TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WITHOUT COSTS