IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA]^^ WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 6 OF 2025 Between: Vennapusa Venkata Lakshumma, W/o. Vennapusa Murali, aged about 28 Years, R/o. Pedda Raju Palli Village, B. Mattam Mandal, Y.S.R (Kadapa) District. ...PETITIONER AND Vennapusa Murali, S/o. V.Lakshmanna, aged about 35 Years, R/o. H.No.4-20-1, New Postal Colony, Kurnool, Kurnool 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.207 of 2024 on the file of Hon’ble Family Judge Court at Kurnool and transfer the same to the file of the Court of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Badvel, Kadapa District. lA NO: 1 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the F I ♦ / / petitioner in F.C.O.P No.207 of 2024 on the file of Hon’ble Family Judge Court at Kurnool, pending disposal of the above Transfer CMP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following Order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.06 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo along with the postal track consignment sheet is filed before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the said postal track consignment sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent by the learned counsel for the petitioner was served on him. But, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. 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.207 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Badvel, Kadapa District. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 3. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed on 22.03.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with two children aged about 8 years and 6 years respectively. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the \ petitioner/wife along with her children are staying at her parents’ house at Peda Raju Palli Village, B.Mattam Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. I. 2 The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before B.Mattam Police Station under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, vide Cr.No.87 of 2024 and the has been numbered as C.C.No.311 of 2024, on the file fo the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel and the same is pending. The petitioner further pleaded that she also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.05 of 2024 and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.11 of 2024, on the file of the on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge Court, Badvel, the same are pending for adjudication. The petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husba nd filedF.C.O.P.No.207 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having two children aged about 8 years and 6 respectively, depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 200Kms from Kadapa District to Kurnool without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.207 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Badvel, Kadapa District. same \ years 3 Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice has been served on the respondent, none appeared for the 4. respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that the petitioner/wife had instituted a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.05 of 2024 and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.11 of 2024 before competent Courts at Kadapa and the respondent/husband is also attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid cases. The respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.207 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage. 6. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA \ held by considering the fact that “if 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. 7. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya 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 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 \ \ " (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 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 counsel for the 8. 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 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.207 of 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Badvel Kadapa District. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.207 of 9. 2024, on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Badvel, Kadapa District. The Family Court, Kurnool, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.207 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Badvel, Kadapa 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. 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. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Family Judge Court, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ' ^ 2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Badvel, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Badvel, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Station House Officer, B Matam Police Station, YSR Kadapa District. 5. One CC to Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies SAM vna T HIGH COURT DATED:19/03/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.6 of 2025 s 03 APR 2025 m ^ . Current iteciton .y. c» ALLOWING THE TRCMP