IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 404 OF 2024 Between: Smt Potnuru @ Sum Sravana Sandhya, W/o Potnuru Vara Prasad, D/o Suru Late Krishna Rao, Hindu, Aged 33 Years, Household duties, D.No. 2- 27-6/1, Sector-6, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner AND Sri Potnuru Vara Prasad, S/o Nooka Raju, aged about 44 years, Amplam Village, Polaki Post and Mandal, Srikakulam. ...Respondent 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 HMOP No. 157 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and the same may be transfer to the Family Judge Court, Visakhapatnam or any other competent court. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be Tv pleased to stay of all further proceedings in HMOP No. 157 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Simhachalam Karukola Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A Ravi Shankar The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.404 of 2024 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.157 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Srikakulam, and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner is none other than the wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 13.08.2014 at Ugra Narasimha Kalyanamandapam, Pinnintipeta Village, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wed-lock period, the petitioner/wifehas blessed with a female child and in view of the matrimonial disputes in between both the spouses; she has been residing separately along with her female child aged about seven (7) years at her parents house at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Tr.C.M.P.No.404 of 2024 VGKR, J / 2 Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/\A/ife further pleaded that, the distance between Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam is approximately more than 100 Kms, she being a women depending upon her parents along with her female child aged about seven (7) years, it is very difficult for her to travel from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam to attend the case proceedings which is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she is seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents’ house along with her child aged about seven (7) years at Visakhapatnam. It is also a fact that that the respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for 4. Tr.C.M.P.No.404 of 2024 VGKR, J 'n-, 3 adjudication. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is staying separately along with her female child aged about seven (7) years at her parents’ house at Visakhapatnam, the distance between Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam is more than 100 kms, since the petitioner being a woman depending upon her parents along with her female child aged about seven (7) years, it is very difficult for her to travel from Visakhapatnam to Srikakulam to attend the case proceedings which is filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition. 5. 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, 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 ' 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 Tr.C.M.P.No.404 of 2024 VGKRJ 4 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 law that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, 1 am of the considered 6. case view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made seeking to withdraw the by the petitioner/wife herein ' V H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Srikakulam and transfer the same to the Judge Family Court at Visakhapatnam. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is 7. allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2024 to the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear Tr.C,M.P.No.404 of 2024 VGKR, J \ 5 before the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, on 17.03.2025 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. SD/- M PRABHAKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISJRAR //TRUE COPY// S t)N OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. The Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Smt Potnuru @ Suru Sravana Sandhya, W/o Potnuru Vara Prasad, D/o Suru Late Krishna Rao, Flindu, Aged 33 Years, Flousehold duties, D.No. 2-27-6/1, Sector-6, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam Sri Potnuru .Vara Prasad, S/o Nooka Raju, aged about 44 years, Amplam Village, Polaki Post and Mandal, Srikakulam. One CC to Sri. Simhachalam Karukola Advocate [OPUO One CC to Sri. A Ravi Shankar Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Stu sree f HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER TRCNlP.No.404 of 2024 ANOH^ 70 5 1 1 FE3 2C25 I Current Section ^ ^ ALLOWING THE TR.C.Nl.P. WITHOUT COSTS