APHC010302622024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 54/2024 Between: Paladugula Vijaya Lakshmi @ P Jayamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Sayed Faeena and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G.V.ANAND KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P VASU SEKHAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. The petitioners herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S, 2023 seeking to withdraw D.V.C.No.34 of 2024 from the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and transfer the same to the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, for inquiry and trial. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: i. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed D.V.C. No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against one Seeni Jnani Ram Prasad and the petitioners herein. Petitioner No.1 is paternal grandmother, petitioner No.2 is mother, and petitioner No.3 is paternal uncle of Seeni Jnani Ram Prasad, who is respondent No.1 in D.V.C. No.34 of 2024. ii. The marriage of respondent No.1 with the Seeni Jnani Ram Prasad was solemnized on 19.06.2022, as per Hindu rites and caste customs, and in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the husband and respondent No.1/wife have been residing separately. Further pleaded that the respondent No.1/wife has instituted a Domestic Violence Case against the husband along with the petitioners herein vide D.V.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and she further pleaded that 1st petitioner is aged about 75 years, suffering from old age ailments, got knee pain and backache and was unable to sit, stand and walk and it would be very difficult for her to travel from Eluru to Madanapalle to attend the case proceedings on each and every adjournment before the said Court and that the petitioners are constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw D.V.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and transfer the same to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.1/wife through virtual mode. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, petitioner No.1 is aged about 75 years and suffering from old age ailments, got knee pain and backache and was unable to sit, stand and walk and it would be very difficult for her to travel from Eluru to Madanapalle to attend the case proceedings on each and every adjournment and the respondent No.1 instituted a case against the husband and his family members i.e. petitioners herein, before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle and the same is pending for adjudication. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1 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 prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 7. 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 law 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, it is not a fit case to consider the request made by the petitioners herein seeking to withdraw the D.V.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and transfer the same to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. 8. On considering the representation made by the learned counsel for 1st petitioner was suffering from old age ailments, knee pain and backache and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being the family members of the husband of respondent No.1, personal attendance of the petitioners herein i.e., the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in D.V.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, has been dispensed with “except on the days when their personal appearance is required as per law”, before the First Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, at Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons and as well as the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law, this Court finds no merit and subsistence in the contention taken by the petitioners for seeking to withdraw the D.V.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and transfer the same to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. Therefore, there are no grounds to allow the present petition and it is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 10. Accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the personal attendance of the petitioners has been dispensed with before the trial Court “except on the dates when their personal attendance is required as per law”. 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 08.01.2025 CVD