IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATJ WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANU, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 42 OF 2024 Between: Thamalampudi Mahesh Reddy, S/o.Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy aged 36 years, Occ; Private Employee, R/o.D.No.6-68/1, Canal Road Anaparthi Village and Mandal. East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Thamalampudi Ashwini, W/o.Thamalampudi Mahesh Reddy, aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.1-232, Opposite Ramalayam Temple, Vittam Rajupalli Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Palanadu District. ...Respondents Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the M.C.No.6 of 2023 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vinukonda, Guntur District to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at ^ Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District or to any other JFCM Court in East Godavari District. I.A. NO::i OF 2024 ■' Petition filed under Section 407 (6) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in M.C.No.6 of 2023 the file of JFCM Vinukonda, Guntur District. on This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Venkatesh, Advocate for Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.42 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner herein have filed the present petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to transfer M.C.No.6 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vinukonda, Guntur District to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District or to any other JFCM Court in East Godavari District. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 2. I. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 has been performed at Tirupati on 28.03.2018. Due to matrimonial disputes between both the parties, they are residing separately. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent No.2/wife has lodged a false complaint vide FIR No.82 of 2022 before the Vinukonda Police Station under Section 498(A) IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitionerand his family members. Thereafter, the same was numbered as C.C.No.288 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Vinukonda Guntur District. The petitioner further pleaded that he had filed FI.M.O.P.No.93 of 2022, on the file of the Senior Civil 2 Judge Court, Ramachandrapuram, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that he and his family members had filed Crl.P.No.7424 of 2022, before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.288 of 2022 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vinukonda, wherein this Court vide its order dated 16.12.2022 has dispensed with the appearance of the parents of the petitioner. Thereafter, due to some altercation between the fathers of both the parties, a case in Cr.No.73 of 2022, before Anaparthi Police Station, registered against the father of the respondent No.2 and the same is numbered as C.C.No.290 of 2024, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi, East Godavari was District. II. Thereafter, on 03.05.2024, when the petitioner and his father attended the Court proceedings in C.C.No.288 of 2022 and out, the father of the respondent No.2 and his supporters attacked the petitioner and his father with sticks and caused injuries. Alleging the same the petitioner filed a complaint before the Vinukonda Police Station; the same was registered as FIR.No.97 of 2024, under Sections 324, 506 r/w came 34 IPC. Further, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the j • •( 3 respondent No.2 had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.6 of 2023 and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.4 of 2023, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Vinukonda against the petitioner. Due to threat from the father of the respondent No.2 and his associates the petitioner was constrained to file the present transfer Criminal F^etition seeking to transfer M.C.No.6 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vinukonda Guntur District to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District or to any other JFCM Court in East Godavari District. Heard Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner 3. learned Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State and Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned oounsel representing respondent No.2 and perused the record. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the 4. respondent No.2 has opposed the transfer of M.C.No.6 of 2023 on the file of the Judioial First Class Magistrate Court, Vinukonda, Guntur District to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District and represented that there are no considerable grounds to consider the request made by 4 the petitioner and requested to dismiss the present Transfer Criminal Petition. 5. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH 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 A.S.Saravana Karthik 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 ofJustice 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. ” In the case on hand, it is observed that admittedly, matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered than that of the inconvenience of the husband jr 1 CHANDER HEERA 6. of N.C.V. Aishv/arya Vs 7. in (2000) 10 see 304 202^2 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 moreover, the respondent No.2/wife instituted Maintenance Case proceedings with a specific plea that she is unable to maintain herself. In such a case, if the maintenance case is transferred at a distance of more than 200 Kms, from Vinukonda at where the respondent No.2/wife is the resident at her parents' house, certainly, it will cause much hardship to the respondent No.2/wife. 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 cases particularly in Maintenance Cases, the request of the petitioner/husband for transfer cannot be considered. Moreover, mere threat is not a ground for seeking transfer of the case from one place to another place. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and as such the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 8. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. 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/-G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District. 2. One CC to Sri K Venkatesh, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies BSV sree HIGH COURT e DATED:29/01/2025 1 V* '■'I: ORDER TRCRLP.No.42 of 2024 AMDS® I 0 5 MAH 2075 ^ . Current Secuun . v. 6» DISMISSING THE TR.CRLP WITHOUT COSTS