IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 11 OF 20?.*^ Between: Aarthi Bhattad, W/o. Manish Bhattad, aged about 38 R/o.D. No 24-3-16, Flat No C-1, Sreemakurthy Apartments Street, Near Vikas Junior College, Kakinada - 533001, East Godavari District. years. House Wife, Temple ...Petitioner/ Respondent AND Manish Kumar Bhattad. S/o. Domodar Bhattad Aged about 40 years Business, R/o. D. No 59-8-1/1 Bhashyam School Road, Gayatri Nagar Vijayawada-520008, Krishna District. ...Respondent/ Petitioner Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C, circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to order withdrawal of the FCOP Praying that in the may be No. 1111 of 2024 from the Hon'ble Court of XIV Additional District Judge Cum Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District to the file Kakinada, East Godavari District for of the Family Court Judge trial and dispose of the same in accordance with law lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition 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 order stay of all further proceedings in FCOP No. 1111 of 2024 from the Hon’ble Court of XIV Additional District Judge Cum Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y.S.VIJAYA PRATAP Counsel for the Respondent: M/s CHUKKA HARIKA The Court made the following: % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.11 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1111 of 2024, on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Vijayawada Krishna District and transfer the same to the Family Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 2. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Vijayawada on 30.05.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with two children aged about 12 years and 7 years respectively. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children are staying at her parents’ house at Kakinada, East Godavari District. The petitioner pleaded that she filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.161 of 2024, on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, I. Kakinada and a Domestic Violence Case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1®^ Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District and the same are p^ding for adjudication. The petitioner contend that to cause 2 inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.1111 of 2024, on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-Cum-Famil y Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having two children aged about 12 years and 7 years respectively, depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 200Kms from Kakinada to Vijayawada without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1111 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Family Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit by denying the allegations mentioned in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner/wife, respondent/husband contends that there are no merits in the application filed by the petitioner/wife and requested to dismiss the miscellaneous petition. The present transfer civil 4. Heard Sri Y.S.Vijaya Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Chukka Harika, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the available on record. material 3 As seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/husba nd, it is contended that there is no truth in the allegations mentioned by the petitioner/\A/ife in her affidavit and on the other hand the respondent/husband had also laid some allegations against the petitioner/wife in the counter affidavit filed by him. As the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1111 of 2024, on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Family Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District. But, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to look into the merits and demerits of the 5. case, which is pending before the Court below. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that the petitioner/wife had instituted a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.161 of 2024 and a Domestic Violence Case before competent Courts at Kakinada and the respondent/husband is also attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid cases. The respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.1111 of 2024, on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER 7. HEERA 1 held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient (2000) 10 see 304 4 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: 8. “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civii 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. ” 9. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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, this Court is of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1111 of 2024, on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 10. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.1111 of on the file of the XIV Additional District 2024, Judge-Cum-Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada, to the East Godavari District. The XIV Krishna District shall Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Vijayawada, transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.1111 of 2024 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District 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. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District on 07.05.2025 at 10.30 a.m. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. petitions, if any pending and the Interim Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER 1. The XIV Additional District Judge-Cum- Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada, District. 3. One CC to Sri Y.S.Vijaya Pratap, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/S Chukka Harika, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Aarthi Bhattad, W/o. Manish Bhattad, aged about 38 years. House Wife, R/o. D.No 24-3-16, Flat No C-1, Sreemakurthy Apartments, Temple Street, Near Vikas Junior College, Kakinada - 533001, East Godavari District, (by RPAD) 6. Manish Kumar Bhattad, S/o. Domodar Bhattad, Aged about 40 Business, R/o. D. No 59-8-1/1 Bhashyam School Road, Gayatri Nagar, Vijayawada-520008, Krishna District, (by RPAD) 7. Three CD Copies To, East Godavari years. MV -ee I HIGH COURT DATED: 21/03/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.H of 2025 5 09 APR 2025 Current Section * a ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P. WITHOUT COSTS