APHC010454292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 298/2025 Between: Katam Vinay Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND Jellela Rajini ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANAND KUMAR KOCHIRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.298 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner/husband filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent/wife and their marriage has been performed at Visakhapatnam on 28.08.2019 as per Christian rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the respondent/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Malkipuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent/wife had lodged a complaint before the Malkipuram Police Station, East Godavari District, vide Cr.No.129 of 2024 and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that he had filed F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam under Section 10(1)(vii)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would contend that the petitioner practiced as an advocate at Visakhapatnam Courts and subsequently, he has shifted his practice to Amaravati. He would further contend that the distance in between Amaravati and Visakhapatnam is approximately more than 350 Kms and that the petitioner/husband was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/wife seeking to transfer F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. 3. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kochiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record. 4. The material on record prima facie goes to show that the respondent/wife had filed a Criminal Case vide Cr.No.129 of 2024 against the petitioner/husband and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam under Section 10(1)(vii)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage. The main ground urged by the petitioner/husband for seeking transfer of the case in F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022, from Visakhapatnam to Vijayawada is that he practiced as an advocate before the Courts at Visakhapatnam and subsequently, he shifted his practice from Visakhapatnam to Amaravati. The contention of the petitioner/husband is that he instituted the case in F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022, on the file of the Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam and the enquiry has also been commenced on behalf of the petitioner/husband and P.W.1 is examined and the same is pending for recording the further evidence of the petitioner/husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has represented that the case in F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022 is pending before the Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam since 3 years, if this Court is inclined to dismiss the present transfer petition, he requested to fix a time limit to the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam for disposal of the case in F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022 on merits in accordance with law. 5. The 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.” 6. 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 no grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/husband to transfer the case in F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022, from the Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada and the same is devoid of merit. Further, on considering the 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that the case in F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022 is pending before the Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam since 3 years, this Court feels it desirable to direct the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam, to dispose of the case in F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022, on the file of the Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 7. In the result, the present petition is disposed of and the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam is hereby directed to dispose of the case in F.C.O.P.No.1580 of 2022, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and report compliance to the Registrar Judicial, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 8. With these observations, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 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: 17.09.2025 SRT 59 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.298 of 2025 Dt. 17.09.2025 SRT