APHC010425132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 322/2024 Between: Badveeti @ Pamidigantam Lakshmi Durga Sandhya , and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Badveeti Raghavenda Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NANDA KISHORE KONDURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. NEELI MANI KANTA The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Guntur, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 28.07.2012 at Nanapaneni Kalyanamandapam, Brundavan Gardens, Guntur, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. The petitioner/wife herein pleaded that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been separately at her parents’ house along with her daughter aged about 7 years at Guntur. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she filed F.C.O.P.No.307 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Guntur, seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband and the said case is pending for adjudication. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her and her child, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. III. The petitioner/wife would further pleaded that, it is very difficult for her to travel along with her daughter to attend the divorce case proceedings, which is at a distance of more than 160 Kms from Guntur to Markapuram on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Guntur. 3. It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondent that counter-affidavit has been filed before the Registry. He would further contend that it is not a fit case to transfer H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024, from Markapuram to Guntur and instead of filing of this application, the petitioner/wife herein is at liberty to file an application before the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram, seeking exemption of personal appearance under Family Court Act, 1984. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent placed a reliance on the Judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 17.12.2008, in the case of T.Usha Rani Vs. G. Venkatesan (Tr.C.M.P.No.342 of 2008), wherein it is held at Para No.7 as follows: “7. When a Court of law deals with an application of the after under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, it has to take note of the convenience of the parties. However, the interest of justice is paramount and in this regard, the convenience of wife will normal be a prime factor in allowing the transfer application. Before the Sub Court, Mannargudi where the H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2007 is pending, the parties need not appear for every hearing and their case/ interest can be taken note of by the counsels who appear for them. Whereas in Family Courts where matrimonial cases are pending, the presence of parties will be insisted generally. Even before the Family Court as per rules framed under the Family Courts Act, a concerned party can file a necessary application praying for exemption from personal appearance and the concerned Family Court is to pass orders on merits.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. Admittedly, the respondent/husband herein has instituted a case i.e., H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District, but not before the Judge, Family Court in Prakasam District. 8. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her daughter aged about 7 years at her parents’ house at Guntur and both are depending upon her parents. She has instituted a case i.e., F.C.O.P.No.307 of 2024 before Judge, Family Court at Guntur against the respondent/husband herein, seeking monthly maintenance of herself and her daughter, the aforesaid case is pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before the Judge, Family Court at Guntur. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is residing separately along with her daughter aged about 7 years at her parents’ house at Guntur, the distance between the Guntur and Markapuram is more than 160 kms, since the petitioner being a woman and depending upon her parents along with her daughter, it is very difficult for her to travel from Guntur to Markapuram to attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband herein, which is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District, on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition. 9. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1held as follows: “9. The cardinal principles 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.” 10. 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 and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, that in 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Guntur. 11. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that, the respondent/husband is working as a software employee and the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., Judge, Family Court at Guntur, “except on the days when his presence is required as per law”, before the said Court. 12. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court at Guntur. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 to the Judge, Family Court at Guntur, 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. The personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram Prakasam District, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., Judge, Family Court at Guntur, “except on the days when his presence is required as per law”. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Judge, Family Court at Guntur, on 18.03.2025, 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 21.02.2025 CVD