THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 399 of 2024 O R D E R: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.453 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, to the concerned Court of the District Judge at Kakinada, East Godavari District. 02. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 30.12.2017 at Madinaguda, Hyderabad by Rev. Dr.Bade Krishna Mohan of Lalaguda, Hyderabad, as per the Christian Customs. The petitioner/wife herein pleaded that due to the matrimonial disputes in between both the parties, the petitioner/wife has been staying at Kakinada at her parents’ house along with minor daughter aged about 5 years and she also filed M.C.S.R.No.9721 of 2024 before the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada and the same is pending for adjudication. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.453 of 2024 before the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.399 of 2024 2 Vijayawada-cum-Family Judge at Vijayawada under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 2001, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. III. The petitioner/wife would further pleaded that, since wife has been staying at Kakinada at her parents’ house along with daughter, aged about 5 years and it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 250Kms from Kakinada to Vijayawada attend the divorce case proceedings and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.453 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge at Vijayawada, to the concerned Court of Additional District Judge-cum- Family Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari District. 03. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kunuku Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 04. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that, the respondent/husband has been staying at USA and he is a Software employee. 05. Perused the material available on record. 06. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents’ house at Kakinada, she has instituted a Maintenance Case against the respondent/husband herein and the VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.399 of 2024 3 same is pending for adjudication before the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada and the respondent/husband herein is also attending the case proceedings before the said Court. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.453 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada-cum-Family Judge at Vijayawada, under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 2001, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife has been staying with her daughter aged about 5 years at her parents’ house at Kakinada, since the petitioner being a woman depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel from Kakinada to Vijayawada to attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband herein, which is pending before the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge at Vijayawada , on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition. 07. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1 held as follows: “9. The cardinal principles 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.399 of 2024 4 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.” 08. 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 at her parents’ house and depending upon her parents’ at Kakinada. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.453 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge at Vijayawada, to the learned III Additional District Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari District. 09. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that, the respondent/husband herein is staying at USA and he is a VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.399 of 2024 5 Software employee, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.453 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Family Judge at Vijayawada, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, “except on the days when his presence is required as per law”, before the said Court. 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.453 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge at Vijayawada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada East Godavari District. The learned XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum-Family Judge at Vijayawada, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.453 of 2024 to the to the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari 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 appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.453 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Family Judge at Vijayawada, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, “except on the days when his presence is required as per law”. There shall be no order as to costs. VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.399 of 2024 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 24.02.2025 SR