APHC010543842024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 408 OF 2024 Between: Lotcherla Sai Ramyasri, W/o.Lotcherla Narasimha Rama Santosh, aged 29 years, OcciHousehold Duties, R/o.D.No.7/47, Visakha A Colony Near Ramalakshmana Junction, Srikakulam Town and District. ...PETITIONER AND Locherla Narasimha Rama Santosh, S/o.Murali Prasad, aged 31 Private Employee, R/o.D.No.3-3-237, GA Colony, Near Ramalayam, BHPV Post, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. years ...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 be pleased to order to withdraw the FCOP No.2311 of 2022 pending on the file of the Court of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to try along with FCMC No. 12 of 2024 e on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court at Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition filed 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 stay of all further proceedings in FCOP No.2311 OF 2022 on the file of the court of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam pending Transfer petition in this Hon’ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI R.S.MANIDHAR PINGALI The Court made the following ORDER : 1 THE HON’ESLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.408 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil F’rocedure, 1908, (for short ‘the C.P.C.’) seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.2311 of 2022 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Srikakulam, to be tried along with the F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2024. 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 solemnized on 18.12.2020, in Srinivasa Kalyanamandapam, near Kanithi Road, Gajuwaka, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents’ house at Srikakulam. The petitioner/wife pleaded that she filed a Maintenance Case vide F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Srikakulam, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband and the same is pending for adjudication against the respondent/husband. 2. I. ' i- i' . VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.408 of 2024 Dated 11.09,202.5 2 II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.2311 of 2022 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she being a woman, residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Srikakularn, it is very difficult for her to travel which is situated at a distance of more than 130Kms from Srikakularn to Visakhapatnam to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male assistance and that she is constrained to file the present petition, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.2311 of 2022 on the file of the Family Judge- cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Srikakularn, to be tried along with the F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that, there are no valid grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife filed in the petition and the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition may be dismissed. Hear^ learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 4. VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.408 of 2024 Dated 11.09.2025 3 PsrusGd the material available on record. 5. to show that, due to the The material on record prima facie goes 6. both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been house at Srikakulam and she had filed a herein vide matrimionial disputes between residing separately at her parents against the respondent/husband file of the Judge, Family Court, Srikakulam, Case Maintenance F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2024 on the under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband and the said case is pending for adjudication and the the Court proceedings before the Court resporident/husband is also attending The material on reveals that the against the petitioner/wife the file of the Family Judge-cum-V , under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of the dissolution of the marriage and the record further at Srikakulam. respondent/husband herein i.e., F.C.O.P.No.2311 of 2022 on has also instituted a case Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam Flindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for also pending for adjudication. The Apex Court in a case of HEERA^, held by considering the fact that if a funds to Visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed." same is GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH GRANDER wife does not have sufficient 7. the ‘(2000) 10 see 304 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.408 of 2024 Dated 11.09,2025 4 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA\ 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 matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the 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 seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing economic are socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. ” 9. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband, therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife herein, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.231 1 of 2022 the file of thp Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam on ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.408 of 2024 Dated 11.09.2025 5 and transfer the sam63 to the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Famity Court at Srikakulam. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.2311 of 2022 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court at Srikakulam. The learned Family Judgej-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the entire case record in F.C.O.P.No.2311 of 2022, to the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court at Srikakulam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are hereby directed to before the III Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court at Srikakulam, on 09.10,2025, 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. 10. appear SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The III Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 3. Lotcherla Sai Ramyasri, W/o.Lotcherla Narasimha Rama Santosh, R/o.D.No.7/47, Visakha A Colony, Near Ramalakshmana Junction, Srikakulam Town and District. 4. Locherla Narasimha Rama Santosh, S/o.Murali Prasad, Private Employee, R/o.D.No.3-3-237, GA Colony, Near Ramalayam Post, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 5. One CC to Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies BSV TAC BHPV HIGH COURT DATED;1 1/09/2025 ORDER TRCMP no. 408 OF 2024 15 SEP 2025 o ro 3r tn O Current Section Tcy^- ALLOWING THE TR.CIMP WITHOUT