IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 356 OF 2024 Between: S.Mounika, W/o. Venkata Suman, Aged about 32 years, Residing at D.No.18-5-88, Sapthagiri Nagar, K.T.Road, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District. ...PETITIONER AND Rudra Venkata Suman, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged about 40 years, R/o. D.No. 39/395-2, Vivekananda Nagar Kadapa City, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. is filed Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer FCOP.No. 11/2024 Judge, Kadapa to the Court of the Hon'ble V Additional District Judge - - Family Judge, Tirupathi. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following Order : on the file of the Hon’ble Family cum 2 THE HON’EJLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.356 of 2024 The petitioner/wife filed the present Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer the F.C.O.P.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, at Kadapa to the Court of V Additional District Judge-cum- Family Judge, Tirupathi. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; 2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein and in view of the matrimonial disputes in between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Tirupathi and depending upon her (i) parents. The petitioner further pleaded that to cause unnecessary (ii) inconvenience, her husband/respondent herein filed F.C.O.P.No.11 of 2024 before the Family Court, at Kadapa for seeking Divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short referred as H.M. Act]. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between both the places is approximately 50 to lOOkms and it is very difficult to attend in F.C.O.P.No.11 of 2024 before the Family Court, at Kadapa on (iii) 3 Ti- each and every adjournment without any male support and that she is constrained to file this application. 3. Heard Sri Venkatesh B Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice served on the respondent, none appeared for the respondent. 4. The material on record prima facie shows that due to matrimonial disputes, the petitioner is staying with her parents, at Tirupathi and the record also further reveals that the husband filed F.C.O.FTNo.11 of 2024 before the Family Court, at Kadapa against the petitioner herein/wife, for dissolution of marriage. 5. 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.” 6. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.SaravanaKarthikSha^ 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, (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (5C) 627 4 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 for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court 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 to transfer the F.C C.P.No.11 of 2024 from the file of the Family Court, at Kadapa to the Court of V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Tirupathi. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and 8. the F.C.C.P.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, at Kadapa is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Judge, Tirupathi. The learned Judge, Family Court at Kadapa shall transmit the case record in F.C.C.P.No.11 of 2024 to the Court of V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Tirupathi, duly irideixed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) 5 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shail be order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. no SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Family Judge, Kadapa The V Additional District Judge - cum - Family Judge, Tirupathi. S.Mdunika, W/o. Venkata Suman, Aged about 32 years. Residing at D.No. 18-5-88, Sapthagiri Nagar, K.T.Road, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District. Rudra Venkata Suman, S/o.Venkataiah, Aged about 40 years, R/o. D.No. 39/395-2, Vivekananda Nagar Kadapa City, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 2. 3. 4. 5. One CC to Sri. VMR LEGAL, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies YM vna HIGH COURT 1' N ■2: DATED:08/01/2025 ;> 7- i f ORDER S’oTandS^^ ? 1 I4M 2n?5 ^ . Current becuon ml Co/ TRCMP.No.356 of 2024 ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITON