11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.387 of 2024 Between: Addanki Parvathi Himabindu, W/o. Sateesh Kumar, D/o.Late Surya Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. D.No. 4-2-27, Thota Vari Veedhi, Venugopala Swamy Temple Street, 0pp. MRO Office, Samarlakota, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND Addanki Sateesh Kumar, S/o. Prabhakara Rao, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o. D.No.2-22/147, RV-139, Daffodil Villa, DL- 41, Yendada Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...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 F.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Family Judge at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P Ramji Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri The Court made the following: t • } THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.387 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Kakinada, East Godavari District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is none other than the wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 31.12.2024 at TTD Kalyanamandapam, Samarlakota, East Godavari District, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wed-lock period, the petitioner/wife blessed with two (2) children and in view of the matrimonial disputes in between both the spouses; she has been residing along with children at her parents’ house at Samarlakota. The petitioner/wife pleaded that she filed a Maintenance Case against the respondent/husband vide M.C.No.64 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada, East Godavari District, under Section 125 of V Tr.C.M.P.No.387 of 2024 VGKR, J the Cr.P.C., seeking monthly maintenance from respondent/husband, the same is pending for adjudication. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, under Section 13{1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. The petitioner/wife further contended that, the distance between Samarlakota and Visakhapatnam is more than 150 Kms, she being a residing along with her two (2) children at her parents’ house at Samarlakota, it is very difficult for her to travel from Samarlakota to Visakhapatnam to attend the divorce case proceedings which is filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she is seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Kakinada, East Godavari District. women Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 3. Tr.C.M.P.No.387 of 2024 VGKR, J 4. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her children at Samarlakota and she has instituted a Case against the respondent/husband herein and the at her parents’ house Maintenance respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before fact that that the the said Court at Kakinada. It is also a respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2024, on the file Family Court at Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is staying separately along with her two (2) parents’ house at Samarlakota, the distance of the Judge children at her Samarlakota and Visakhapatnam is more than 150 kms, and depending upon her difficult for her to travel between since the petitioner being a woman parents along with her children, it is very Samarlakota to Visakhapatnam to attend the divorce case proceedings which is filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, on each and every from male support and that she was adjournment without any constrained to file the present transfer petition. i Tr,C.IVl.P.No.387 of 2024 VGKR, J 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 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. ” 6. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the of the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife, seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2024, the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam and inconvenience view on ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 I IT; Tr.C.M.P.No.387of 2024 VGKR, J transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Kakinada, East Godavari District. 7. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition i: allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Kakinada, East Godavari District. The learned Judge, Family Court Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.1396 of 2024 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at 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 this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Kakinada, East Godavari District, on 24.03.2025, at 10;30 a.m. There shall be no order as to costs. IS at As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEdr&r 1. The Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam r D'^sion). Kakinada, East Godavari 3. One CC to Sri P Ramji, Advocate [OPUC] //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To District. 4. One CC to Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, Advocate [OPUC] Himabindu. W/o. Sateesh Kumar D/o Late Surva ThSa^Va^ri’vaPrihf^?/ years Occ: Housewife, R/o. D.No. 4-2-27 omrl qfmaYi Swamy Temple Street, Opp MRO Uttice, Samarlakota, East Godavari District. n S/o. Prabhakara Rao, Hindu aged about 43 41 R/o- D.No.2-22/147, RV-139, DaffodN Villa DL^ 41, Yendada Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. TK 7. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 06/02/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.387 of 2024 oTandh^^^ * 15 FEB 2025 Co y/ // )A Current Section %iOESPATO»SS^ ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION