IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 280 OF 2024 Between: Balija Bhavani, wife of Parla Subbarayudu, Daughter of Sriniasulu, Home maker, aged about 25 years, Aadhar No.9968 2169 4402, resident of Flat No.62, K.P.S. Avenue, Gooty R.S., Gooty Town, Anatapur District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Parla Subbarayudu, Son of P.Chinna Subbaiah, aged about 35 years, Aadhar No.2329 5821 2155, Bank Employee, presently working at D.No.13-22, Thiruthani of Tamilnadu State, Permanent resident of Yellayapalli Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition 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 F.C.O.P.No.90 of 2024 on the file of VI Additional District Judge - cum - Judge, Family Court, Kadapa and pleased to transfer the same to any competent Court at Gooty (Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty) or to any other competent and convenient Court at Anathapuram. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 i Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances . - S|^ted in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be f leased to stay of all further proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.90 of 2024 on the .. file of VI Additional District Judge - cum - Judge, Family Court, Kadapa pending disposal of the above said case. , < ? "v' J Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI D. PURNACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following: % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.280 of 2024 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.90 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Kadapa and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed at Kadapa District on 19.06.2019. During their wedlock the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband were blessed with two children aged about 3^^^ years and 1^^^ years respectively. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children is staying at her parents’ house at Gooty Town, Anantapur District. The petitioner pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.2 of 2024, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty and the same is pending for adjudication against the respondent/husband. The petitioner pleaded that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.90 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional 2 QV District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Kadapa, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman along with her children aged about 3^^^ years and years respectively, depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of approximately lOOkms from Gooty Town, Anantapur District to Kadapa, Kadapa District 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.90 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge-Cum- Family Court, Kadapa and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty. 3. Heard Sri V.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. The respondent/husband has filed a counter affidavit and 4. Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent has represented that the respondent/husband was harassed by the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband is working as a Bank Employee at Tiruthani, Tamil Nadu State. As such, there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner, it is not a fit case % 3 to transfer and requested to dismiss the transfer petition filed by the petitioner/wife. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children are staying at her parents’ house at Gooty Town, Anantapur District and she also instituted a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.2 of 2024, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty against the respondent and the respondent is attending the case proceedings in the aforesaid case. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA \ 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 of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs 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 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 5. 6. 7. " (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 $ 4 subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their liveiihood and under whose protective umbreila they are seeking their sustenance to iife. 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 8. appearing for both sides 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 that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.90 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Kadapa and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty. Further on considering the representation made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the respondent/husband is working as a Bank Employee at Tiruthani, Tamil Nadu State, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e. the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.90 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Kadapa, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e. the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty, except on the days when his presence is required as per law. In the result, the present petition is allowed and 9. F.C.O.P.No.90 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District % 5 Judge-Cum-Family Court, Kadapa, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty. The VI Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Kadapa, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.90 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty, 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. Further, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e. the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.90 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Kadapa, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty, except on the days when his presence is required as per law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty on 07.05.2025, at 10.30 a.m. 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/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District-cum-Family Judge, Kadapa 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, Ananthapuramu District. 3. The Station House Officer, Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuramu District. 4. One CC to Sri. V Surendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. D Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUO 6. Three CD Copies Pmg sree 1? HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.280 of 2024 ANO/y^^ = 0 6 MAR 2025 o». Current Section ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P. WITHOUT COSTS