A APHC010251472025 -»>> IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY// TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 161 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Sreerapu Mounika, W/o.Sreerapu Sai Raju, aged 27 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.D.No.38-34-55, FCI Nagar, Opp.Apple Park, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-530 018. ...Petitioner AND Sri Sreerapu Sai Raju, S/o.Sreerapu Bhagawan, aged 3^ years, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.D.No.3-273, Eguva Street, Balararnpuram, Tulasigam, Dharmapuram Post, Ichchapuram Mandal, Srikakuiam-532 312. ...Respondent 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 case HMOP.No.129 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta, Srikakulam District, and transfer to Judge, Family jCourt at Visakhapatnam or any jurisdictional Court in Visakhapatnam. lA Nol 1 OF 2025 Petition fiied 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 in HMOP.No.129 of 2024 on the fild of Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta, Srikakulam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared The dourt made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.161 of 20^5 ORDER; Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin, I I learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo dated 24.07.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet is filedj before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the track consignt^ent sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him on ] 9.07.2025. Therefore, service held sufficient. None appeared for the respondent. i The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.129 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta, Srikakulam District and transfer 1 he same to 1 the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 3. I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and thdir marriage i has been performed at Srikakulam on 14.02.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Mariipalem, Visakhapatnam and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner plea(1ed that she had filed F.C.O.P.No.1637 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Fpmily Court, Visakhapatnam under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking 2 for dissolution of marriage and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid case before the competent Court at Vispkhapatnam. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to caijse inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.129 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sompeta, Srikakulam District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and the same is also pending for adjudication, i II. Ledrned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a I I woijnan, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travfel at a distance of more than 200 Kms from Visakhapatnam to Sompeta without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present I petjtion against the respondent/husband seeking to H.M.O.P.No.129 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta, Srikakulam District and trarisfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 4. Heard Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. Perused the material available record, i on 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the j matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Mariipalem, Visakhapatnam and she had filed F.C.O.P.No.1637 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam under Section 13(1)(ia) 3 Of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.129 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sompeta, Srikakulam District, under Section 9 of the Hindi Marriage j Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and the same is also lpending for I adjudication. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha'' held as follows; 6. “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 consideralion the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses aid 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 livelihcod 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 counsel for 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, this Court is of the considered view I that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to' withdraw H.M.O.P.No.129 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta, Srikakulam District and transfer the Visakhapatnam. 7. same to the Judge, Family Court, ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 , am 4 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.129 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The Senior Civil Jud^e Court, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, shall transmit the case record in ! H.M.O.P.No.129 of 2024 to 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 the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Asia sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To The Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam District. Division), Sompeta, Srikakulam District. R/o.D.No.38-34-55, FCl 1. ! 2. The Civil Judge (Senior W/o.Sreerapu Sai Raju Marripalem, Visakhapatnam-530 018. I 3. Sreerapu Mounika Nagar, Opp.Apple Park, Occ-.Private Employee, Tulasigam Sai Raju, S/o.Sreerapu Bhagawan Street, Sreerapu R/o.D.No.3-273, Dharmapuram Post, Ichchapuram 4. Balarampuram, Eguva Mandal, Srikakulam-532 312. Mohammed Gayasuddin, Advocate [OPUC] 5; One CC to Sri 6, Two CD Copies BSV vna HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO. 161 OF 2025 ^otandh^ 1 'I AUG 2025 a: ^ . Current Section ^ 4£esPATCv\^ ALLOWING THE TR.CMP WITHOUT COSTS