IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT AT AMARAVATI DAY OF MARCH the honourable SRI JUSTICE transfer civil , fynrnii- VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA Petition no: sss of RAO Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, pleased to order withdrawal Praying that in the the High Court may be of H.M.O.P.No.186 of 2024 pending on the file of the court of Learned Civil and transfer the (Senior Division) Judge, Tenali same for trial and disposal Additionai Family Judge, Vijayawada Vijayawada, NTR District. Guntur District to the Court of Learned -Cum-XIV Additional District Judge Between: Banavathu Srilakshmi Aged about 43 years, Occ Housewife, R/o.Plot No. Gurunanak Colony, Vijayawada-520008 W/o .B.Srinivasa Rao Naik D/o.G.Mangapathy, 73, CTO Colony, NTR District. ...Petitioner AND Banavathu Srinivasa Rao Naik, Occ Assistant Director of Animal and Mandal, NTR District. S/o.B.Sambaiah, Aged about 51 years. Husbandry, R/o.Vissannapeta Village ...Respondents ✓ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.186 of 2024 pending on the file of the court of Learned Civil (Senior praying that in the circumstances Division) Judge Tenali, Guntur District, pending disposal of the main Transfer C.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI BHANU PRASAD CHUKKAPALLI The Court made the following: // THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.389 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.186 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Tenali, Guntur District and transfer the same to the learned Additional Family Judge-Cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR 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 City, NTR District on 31.03.2002 as per Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with two children. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children are staying at her parents’ house at Vijayawada, NTR District. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Disha Police Station, Vijayawada, under Section 498-A I PC vide Cr.No.43 of 2024 and the same is pending. The petitioner further pleaded that she had also filed a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.No.899 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, NTR District and the respondent/husband is attending the court proceedings in the aforesaid case before the competent court at Vijayawada. t. 2 The petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to her, 2024, on the file of the Senior under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the of marriage. the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.186 of Civil Judge Court at Tenali, Guntur District Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissoiution II- Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and having two children, depending upon her parents, it is very difficult a distance of more than 40Kms from Vijayawada, any male support and that she for her to travel at NTR District Tenali, Guntur District without was against the respondent/husband on the file of the Senior Civil and transfer the same to the learned District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.186 of 2024 Judge Court at Tenali, Guntur District Additional Family Judge-Cum-XIV Additional District. 3. The respondent has filed petitioner/wife in the transfer petition. Learned would contend that there a counter affidavit by denying the averments of the counsel for the respondent/husband are no grounds to consider the petitioner/wife and requested to dismiss the transfer request of the petition. 4. Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned Sri Bhanu Prasad Chukkapalli, learned material available on record. The material on record filed a 498-A I PC counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent. Perused the 5. phma facie goes to show that the petitioner/wife had case against the respondent/husband vide Cr.No.43 of 2024 and ... 3 Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.No.899 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, NTR District, wherein the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid case. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.186 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Tenali, Guntur District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage. 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 follov/s: 6. 7. “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. ” On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case la^ that in 8. ^ (2000) 10 see 304 ' 2022 LiveLriw (SC) 627 ✓ 4 matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considerec! than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the H.M.O.P.No.186 of 2024 request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Tenali Guntur District and transfer the Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR District. same to the learned Additional f-amily Judge-Cum-XIV 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.:No.186 of 2024 the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Tenali, Guntur and transferred to the Additional Family Judge-Cum-XIV Additional on District, is hereby withdrawn District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR District. The Senior Civil Judge Court at Tenali, Guntur District shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.186 of 2024 to the Additional Family Judge-Cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR District duly indexed expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date as of receipt of a copy of the order. Both parties are directed to appear before the Additional Family Judge-Cum-XIV Additional District Judge District on 11.04.2025 at 10.30 a.m. There shall be no order as to costs. Vijayawada, NTR As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Intefim granted earlier, if any, shall standi closed. order Sd/-N NAGAMMA assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil (Senior Division) Judge, Tenali, Guntur District 2. The Additional Family Judge, District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR District. Vijayawada-Cum-XIV Additional 3. Banavathu Srilakshmi, W/o .B.Srinivasa Rao Naik, D/o.G.Mangapathy. Aged about 43 years, Occ Housewife, R/o.Plot No.73, CTO Colony, Gurunanak Colony, Vijayawada-520008, NTR District. 4. Banavathu Srinivasa Rao Naik, S/o.B.Sambaiah, Aged about 51 Occ Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, R/o.Vissannapeta Village and Mandal, NTR District. 5. One CC to Sri. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. Bhanu Prasad Chukkapalli, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies years. PR sree HIGH COURT Both parties are directed to before the Additional Judge-Cum-XIV District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR District on 11.04.2025 at 10.30 a.m. DATED:26/03/2025 appear Family Additional \ \ ORDER TRCMP.No.389 of 2024 § m APR 2025 Current Section , ^ o ALLOWING THE TRCMP WITHOUT COSTS