>1 APHC010241152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH li)AY OF JUNE I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENl Y FIVE ' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO I TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: Ifin DF Between: Smt Pikki Sampanna Lakshmi, W/o.Sri Satya Rohit, Ramu, aged about 19 years, R/o.D.No.7-9, Kunapareddy Nagar, Vuyyuru, Krishna District. D/o. Pikki ..Petitioner/Respondent / AND Sri Gullala Sri Satya Rohit, S/o.Nagaraju, aged about 28 R/o.D.No.62-4-17, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam -II, Visakhapatnam District. years, Ganesh Mandir Street, Sriharipuram ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition filed 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 the F.C.O.P No.2529 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Family Court at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and /' transfer the same to the Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. 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 on all further proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.2529 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Family Court at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District pending disposal of Transfer C.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NUVVULA RAM BABU 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.160 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter has been taken up for heiaring, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service Memo dated 20.06.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website has been 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 15.05.2025. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’. None appeared for the respondent. 2. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24j of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O P.No.2529 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed in the presence of their elders and family members on 03.04.2024, at Palm Beach Hotel Function Hall No.1, Lawn No.1, Beach Road at Visakhapatnam, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents’ house at Vuyyuru, Krishna District 2 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.160 of 2025 Dated 25.06.2025 and depending upon the mercy of her parents The petitioner/wife pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members, dated 27.09.2024, in F.I.R.No.284 of 2024, under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023, before the Vuyyuru Police Station, the same is pending for investigation and she also filed a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.(M.C)No.1494 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, seeking monthly maintenance and the pending for adjudication against the respondent/husband. II. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that to inconvenience to the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.2529 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contended that the petitioner being a woman and depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which is situated at a distance of more than 300 Kms from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam, without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.2529 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Family same is cause 3 .stt VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.160 of 2025 Dated 25.06.2025 Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Principal Family Court Vijayawada, Krishna District. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him, none 5. appeared for the respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prime facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents’ house at Vuyyuru, Krishna District, she filed two (2) cases against the respondent/husband i.e.. Criminal case under Section 85, of B.N.S. Act, 2023, before the Vuyyuru Police Station and also filed a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.(M.C)No.1494 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District and the aforesaid cases are pending for adjud^ation against the respondent/husband. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.2529 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Family Court, yisakhapatnam, 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. 7. 4 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.160 of 2025 Dated 25.06.2025 8. 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: 9. “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. ” y On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws that in 10. 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 for seeking withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.2529 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Family (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.160 of 2025 Dated 25.06.2025 Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer the Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. same to the Principal Family Court-cum-IV 11. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous F.C.O.P.No.2529 of 2024 Petition is allowed and on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, IS hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional The Additional Family Court, District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.2529 of 2024, to the Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, District, duly indexed Krishna as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two a copy of this order. There shall be no order (02) weeks from the date of receipt of as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAI^ //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SEi To, The Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Smt Pikki Sampanna Lakshmi, W/o.Sri Satya Rohit Ramu, R/o.D.No.7-9, Kunapareddy Nagar, District. Sri Gullala Sri Satya Rohit, S/o.Nagaraju, R/o.D.No.62-4-17, Ganesh Mandir Street, Sriharipuram, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam -II, Visakhapatnam District. One CC to Sri Nuvvula Ram Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 1. 2. D/o.Pikki Vuyyuru, Krishna 3. 4. 5. 6. Three CD Copies BSV vna L HIGH COURT DATED:25/06/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO.160 OF 2025 Y s\/ 0 2 JUL 2025 ^^s^rrent SectigpxC^ o CO ALLOWING THE TR.CWIP WITHOUT COSTS