IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 379 OF 2n9d Between: Smt Kuppili Sruthi, 29 years d/o Kuppili Lakshmi Narasimham, Hindu Doctor(Dentist) 203B, Ashoka Apartments, P.K.Layout, Tirupati-517501 Tirupati District (AP) ...Petitioner AND Sri Vuddavolu Harshad, 30 years s/o Pradeep Kumar Hindu Engineer Block N0.BI, Flat No.SIO, Dolphin Heights Singapore City Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram(AP) Software ...Respondent Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. is fiied Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw FCOP No.70 of 2024 Court at Vizianagaram and the Family Court at Tirupati. on the file of the Hon’ble Family same may be transferred to the Hon’ble 7 S' :• lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in FCOP No.70 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, Vizianagaram pending disposal of this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bondu Sekhara Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Bala Mohan Rao S The Court made the follovAring: Order If THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.379 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, at Vizianagaram and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Tirupati, Chittoor District, for trial. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 08.12.2022 at DPR Convention Hall, behind Srinivasam, Tirupati, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. The petitioner/wife herein pleaded that she has been pursuing her First year MDS course Sri Chadalawada Krishna Teja Institute of Dental Sciences & Research at Tirupati. She further pleaded that, during their wed-lock period, the petitioner/wife blessed with a female child and in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying separately along with her daughter aged about 172 years at her parents house at Tirupati. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, 2. I. in 2 seeking dissolution of the adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that marriage and the same is pending for the petitioner being a woman, staying separately along with her daughter aged about 1% years at her parents’ house at Tirupati, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 800 Kms from Tirupati to Vizianagaram without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2024 Vizianagaram and transfer the Tirupati, Chittoor District. on the file of the Judge, Family Court, same to the Judge, Family Court at 3. Fleard learned counsel appearing on both sides. Learned counsel for the respondent 4. would contend that, the respondent/husband has been suffering wifh facial paralysis and also neurological problems and thaf he is not fif fo travel from Vizianagaram to Tirupati to attend the case proceedings. He further with contended that there are no valid grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife transfer the case from Vizianagaram to Tirupati and requested this Court to herein to dismiss the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that the respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2024 on the file of the Judge /t r 3 Family Court, Vizianagaram, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is staying separately along with her child aged about IV2 at her parents’ house at Tirupati, the distance between the Tirupati and Vizianagaram is more than 800 kms, since the petitioner being a woman depending upon her parents along with her child, it is very difficult for her to travel from Tirupati to Vizianagaram to attend the divorce case proceedings which is pending before the Judge, Family Court, at Vizianagaram, on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition. years The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER 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.” 7. HEERA The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows: 8. “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 ^ (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SCL627 4 transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spousesand 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 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. ” are 9. 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 laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case; that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. It is also further clear that the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child aged about 114 years at her parents’ house and depending upon her parents’ at Tirupati. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram and transfer the same to the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, at Tirupati, Chittoor District. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that, the respondent/husband herein has been suffering with facial paralysis and neurological problems and he also working as a software 10. / VGKR, J Tr.C,M.P.No.379 of 2024 5 engineer at present, the respondent/husband is attending his duties by way of work from home, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court Vizianagaram, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, at Tirupati, Chittoor District, ( except on the days when his presence is required as per law”, before the said \ Court. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and 11. F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the V Additional District Judge-cum- Family Court Judge, at Tirupati, Chittoor District. The Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2024 to the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, at Tirupati, Chittoor District, 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 attendance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.70 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, at Tirupati, Chittoor District, “except on the days when his presence is required as per law”. Both the parties are directed to appear before the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, at VGKR, J ' Tr.C.M.P.No.379 of 2024 6 Tirupati, Chittoor District, on 27.03.2025, at 10.30 a.m. There shall be no order as to costs. N As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFICER //TRUE COPY// sgcf^ To, 1. The Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram district 2. The V Additional District Judge-cum- Family Court Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District 3. Sri Vuddavolu Harshad, 30 years s/o Pradeep Kumar Hindu, Software Engineer Block N0.BI, Flat No.510, Dolphin Heights Singapore City, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram 4. Smt Kuppili Sruthi, 29 years d/o Kuppili Lakshmi Narasimham, Hindu Doctor(Dentist) 203B, Ashoka Apartments, P.K.Layout. Tlrupati-517501 Tirupati District 5. One CC to Sri Bondu Sekhara Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Bala Mohan Rao S Advocate [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies stu ( I HIGH COURT DATED: 04/02/2025 f ORDER jfoF ANO/y^^ TRCMP.No.379 of 2024 15 FEB 2025 X o Co/ ^ . Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE TR.CMP