APHC010563942024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 113/2024 Between: Cherukuri Ravikanth ...PETITIONER AND Ch Swathi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANKALLA PRUDHVI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. SREEDHAR VALIVETI The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner/husband herein filed the present petition under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to withdraw D.V.C.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District, under Sections 12, 18, 20 & 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and transfer the same to the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner herein and their marriage was solemnized on 18.04.2018, at Vutukuru, N.T.R. District, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock period, the petitioner/husband and the respondent No.1/wife were blessed with a male child on 23.02.2019. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/husband has been residing separately along with her male child aged about 4yearsat Vutukuru Village, N.T.R. District. The petitioner/husband pleaded thatthe respondent No.1/wife filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District, against the petitioner/husband and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/husband further pleaded that, he is suffering from foot disease and he is unable to travel to attend the Court proceedings from Vutukuru to Tenali which is at a distance of more than 70 Kms and that he was constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw D.V.C.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District and transfer the same to the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed to transfer the present case from Tenali to Vijayawada and the respondent No.1/wife is also filed the counter-affidavit by denying the material averments of the petition filed by the petitioner/husband. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 5 Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/husband has been residing along with his child age about 4 years at Vutukuru, N.T.R. District, the respondent No.1 has been residing separately at her parents’ house at Tenali and she has instituted a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District, against the petitioner/husband under Sections 12, 18, 20 & 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the same is pending for adjudication. 7. 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 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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.” 8. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid case lawand on considering the facts and circumstances of the casethat in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, I do not find any valid grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/husband seeking to withdraw D.V.C.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District and transfer the same to the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/husband is suffering with foot disease and a child of petitioner and respondent is staying with petitioner herein, therefore, I am of the considered view that the personal appearance of the petitioner/husband herein i.e., respondent in D.V.C.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, Guntur District, has been dispensed with “except on the days when his presence is required before the said Court as per law”. 9. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is disposed of. 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 10.04.2025 CVD