APHC010413702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 257/2025 Between: 1. IPPILI (KOMMA) PARVATHI NAGA LALITHA, W/O IPPILI NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O 84-6-491, 2ND FLOOR, SAMPATH NAGAR, R-AGRAHARAM GUNTUR-522003 ...PETITIONER AND 1. IPPILI NAVEEN, S/o Late Anand, aged about 35 years, Occ Private Employee R/o D.no.402, Dolphin Heights, Durga Nagar Beside VST School, TIC Point, Arilova, Visakapatnam-530040 ...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 topleased to withdraw the F.C.O.P. No. 1002 of 2025 on the file of Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam and transfer to the Family Court Judge, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and pass IA 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in F.C.O.P. No. 1002 of 2025 on the file of Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Family Court, Visakhapatnam including appearance of the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ALAPATI LALITH NIKHIL Counsel for the Respondent: 1. T D PANI KUMAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.257 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short „the C.P.C.‟) seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.1002 of 2025, on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District, for trail and disposal of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 22.08.2022, at Dasari Hanumayya Kalyana Mandapam, Sampath Nagar, Guntur, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Guntur. The petition/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint dated 29.07.2025, against the respondent/husband and his family members, which was registered as F.I.R. No.165 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Guntur, the same is pending for investigation. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed a divorce petition vide F.C.O.P.No.1002 of 2025, on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately in her parents‟ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Guntur and the distance between Guntur and Visakhapatnam is more than 400Kms, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband, before the Court at Visakhapatnam without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.1002 of 2025 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District, for trial and disposal of the same. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner and the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri Alapati Lalith Nikhil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. D. Gayathri, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri T. D. Pani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Guntur. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife herein i.e., F.C.O.P.No.1002 of 2025, on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. 9. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA1, held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 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.” 10. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA2, 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 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.” 11. 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 laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. The petitioner/wife has been residing in Guntur at her parents‟ house, therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 F.C.O.P.No.1002 of 2025 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District. 12. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.1002 of 2025 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District. The learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.1002 of 2025, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur 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. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District, on 15.12.2025, 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 03.11.2025 CVD