APHC010334132024 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: 62/2024 Between: Seeni Jnani Rama Prasad ...PETITIONER AND Sayed Faeena and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 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 petitioner herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, 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 file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: i. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No.1 was performed on 01.12.2014 in Gudiyatam, and in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/husband and respondent No.1/wife has been residing separately. The petitioner/husband pleaded that, he is staying at Chennai and working as a Customs Officer and he further pleaded that the respondent No.1/wife has instituted a Domestic Violence Case against the petitioner/husband herein vide D.V.C.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and he further pleaded that he is staying at Chennai and working as a Customs Officer, it is very difficult for him to travel from Chennai to Madanapalle, to attend the case proceedings on each and every adjournment and that he was 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 petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1/wife through virtual mode. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record primafacie goes to show that, the petitioner/husband is staying at Chennai and working as a Customs Officer at Chennai and the respondent No.1/wife has instituted a case against the petitioner/husband 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.” 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 petitioner/husband 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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 the petitioner that since the petitioner/husband has been residing at Chennai and working as a Customs Officer, certainly, it is very difficult for him to travel from Chennai to Mandanapalle to attend the Court proceedings before the said Court on each and every adjournment. Therefore, the personal attendance of the petitioner/husband herein i.e., the respondent No.1 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 his personal appearance is required as per law”. 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 in the contention taken by the petitioner/husband seeking withdrawal of 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 file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. 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 petitioner/husband has been dispensed with before the trial Court “except on the dates when his 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