IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 375 OF 2024 Between: Kotha Bharathi Kalyani Devi @ Chirlamcherla Bharathi Kalyani, Devi W/o. Kotha Aruna Ratna Kumar, D/o. Cherlamcherla Brahmanandam, aged about 29 years, Hindu, House wife, 3/8, Aravindha Gosh Street, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER AND Kotha Aruna Ratna Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 37 years, Hindu, Business, R/o. D.No. 42-14-2A, Block No.67, Raja Sri Bar Road, Indira Naik Nagar, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...RESPONDENT Petition filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bd pleased to withdraw the F.C.O.P No. 1050 of 2023 on the file of Honble Principal Family Court at Vijayawada and transfer the same to Honble Senior Civil Judges Court at Markapuram, Prakasam District. 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 pleased to grant an interim stay of the further proceedings in F.C.O.P No. 1050 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Family Court at Vijayawada during the pendency of this petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 pleased to vacate interim order in lA no. 1 of 2024 in Tr.C.M.P no. 375 of 2024, dated 15-11-2024 filed by the Petitioner and pleased to dismiss the main Tr.C.M.P no. 375 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B SUDHAKAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent; SRI S BALA MOHAN RANGA The Court made the following ORDER : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.375 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.1050 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapuram, Prakasam 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 Markapur on 12.12.2021 as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District and she is a house-wife. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the A.S.Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada City vide Cr.No.524 of 2023, under Section 498-A I PC and the same is pending against the respondent/husband. The petitioner pleaded that she had also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.09 of 2024 and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.08 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapuram and the same are pending for adjudication. The petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to her. I. f the respondent/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.1050 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Flindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman, depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 200Kms from Markapuram, Prakasam District to Vijayawada without any male support and that she constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1050 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapuram, Prakasam District. was 3. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit by denying the allegation>4 mentioned in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner/wife and represented that there are no merits in the application filed by the petitioner/wife. He further submitted that he had filed I.A.No.1 of 2025, seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to investigate whether the petitioner/wife is residing at Vijayawada at the house address mentioned in I.A.No.1 of 2025 and doing her job or not. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in R.Radhika vs. G.Ramesh Babu in Tr.C.M.P.Nos.59 & 60 of 2025 & C.M.P.Nos.1289 & 1291 of 2025, wherein the facts of the aforesaid case law relates to the examination of the witnesses. 3 but not with regard to the conducting of the investigation by the learned Advocate Commissioner to verify the addresses of the parties at a particular place. The law is well settled that for the purpose of conducting an investigation, the Advocate Commissioners cannot be appointed. Therefore, the facts in the aforesaid case law are different from the instant case. Heard Sri B.Sudhakar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and 5. Sri S.Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prime facie goes to show that the petitioner/wife had instituted a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.09 of 2024 and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.08 of 2024, before competent Courts at Markapuram, Prakasam District and the respondent/husband is also attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid cases. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife is that in the year 2023, the petitioner used to stay at Vijayawada, but, subsequently, she shifted her residence from Vijayawada to Markapur at her parents’ house. The material on record further goes to show that as per the addresses mentioned in M.C.No.09 of 2024 and D.V.C.No.08 of 2024, filed by the petitioner/wife clearly shows that the petitioner/wife is residing at Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District. Furthermore, the addresses mentioned in F.C.O.P.No.1050 of 2023, filed by the respondent/husband also show that the petitioner/wife is residing at Markapuram in Prakasam Judicial District. 4 7. Moreover, the significance of the Section Procedure, 1908 is summary procedure and if the petitioner/wife has been really residing at Vijayawada, I think she will 24 of the Code of Civil not file the present petition seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.1050 of 2023, from the Court at Vijayawada to a remote place i.e., to the Court at Markapuram, Prakasam District situated beyond 200Kms from Vijayawada. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs , which is 8. HARISH CHANDER held by considering the fact that “it 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.” 1 HEERA 9. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Alshwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows; 9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice 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 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 are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing 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 petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that i social they socio- economic 10. counsel for the in ^ (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 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/wife to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1050 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapuram, Prakasam District. 11. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.1050 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapuram, Prakasam District. The Principal Family Court, Vijayawada shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.1050 of 2023 to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapuram, Prakasam District duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapuram, Prakasam District on 05.05.2025 at 10.30 a.m. There shall be no order as to costs. a copy As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. SOI- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Family Court Judge: Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division); Markapuram, Prakasam District r 3. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate: Markapur, Prakasam District. 4. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cum Mahila Court; Vijayawada. Krishna District. 5. The Station House Officer, A S Nagar Police Station, Krishna District. 6. Kotha Bharathi Kalyani @ Chirlamcherla Bharathi Kalyani W/o. Kotha Aruna Ratna Kumar, D/o. Cherlamcherla Brahmanandam. aged about 29 years, Hindu, House wife, 3/8, Aravindha Gosh Street Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. 7. Kotha Aruna Ratna Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged.37 Business, R/o. D.No. 42-14-2A, Block No.67, Raja Sri Bar Road Naik Nagar, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 8. One CC to Sri B.Sudhakar Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri S Bala Mohan Ranga Advocate [OPUC] 10.THREE CD COPIES years, Hindu, Indira SAM TAG f HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 ORDER TRCIVIP.No.375 of 2024 ALLOWING THE TRCMP