1 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 APHC010247872024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1331/2024 Between: 1. VASAMSETTI NAVEEN KUMAR,, S/O.VENKATARAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, D.NO.7-236/1, VASAMSETTIVARIPALEM AREA, KADALI (V) RAZOLE MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKARKONASEEMA (ERSTWHILE EASTGODAVARI) DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SANABOYINA VARALAKSHMI DEVI VASAMSETTI VARALAKSHMI DEVI Aged about 25 Years, Occ- Unknown, D.No.17-9-22, Kasthuri Surynarayana Hospital Street, Seethampeta, Rajamahendravaram, Eastgodavari District. (Addresses given as per cause title in Transfer Petition) ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to call for records pertaining to file in Transfer.O.P.No.155 of 2023 on the file of Learned Principal District Judge, Eastgodavari District, Rajamahendravaram and set aside the impugned order dt.27.02.2024 made in Transfer.O.P.No.155 of 2023 on the file of Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram and pass 2 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.16 of 2022 as ordered to be withdrawn from the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Razole and laid on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D V V S S N H BHUJANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA 3 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, dated 27.02.2024 in Transfer Original Petition No.155 of 2023, whereby, the Court below allowed the petition filed by the respondent/petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short „CPC‟) by transferring O.P.No.16 of 2022 (filed by the petitioner herein) from the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole to the Court of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were referred in O.P.No.16 of 2022. (a) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 08.08.2020 in Podagatlapalli village as per Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, few disputes arose between them and thus, the petitioner filed O.P.No.16 of 2022 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole against the respondent to annul the marriage that took place on 08.08.2020. (b) Pending the said petition, the respondent filed a petition (Tr.O.P.No.155 of 2023) under Section 24 of CPC on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, 4 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 requesting the Court to transfer the O.P.No.16 of 2022 filed by the petitioner on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram by stating that she, residing at her relatives house bearing D.No.17-9-22, Hospital Street, Seethampeta, Rajamahendravaram, is facing inconvenience to attend the Court at Razole for trial. The respondent contested the said transfer petition by filing a counter affidavit. The learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, after considering the contentions put forth by both the parties, allowed the petition filed by the respondent on 27.02.2024 by withdrawing O.P.No.16 of 2022 from the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole and transferring the same to the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this civil revision petition. 3. When this petition came up for hearing on 08.07.2024, this Court passed the following interim order: “Till the next date of listing, the O.P.No.16 of 2022 shall not be transferred from the court of Senior Civil Judge at Razole to II Additional Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Rajamahendravaram. The proceedings of O.P.No.16 of 2024 shall also remain stayed till the next date of listing.” The said interim order was extended thereafter, from time to time. 4. When this civil revision petition was listed on 16.04.2025, this Court called for a record from the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, pursuant 5 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 to which, a report has been put up by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge stating that originally the O.P.No.16 of 2022 was filed before the Civil Judge‟s Court (Senior Division), Razole and subsequently, as per the order dated 20.07.2024 of the learned Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram in Tr.O.P.No.155 of 2023, the said petition was transferred to II Additional Civil Judge‟s Court (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram on 19.03.2024 itself and that the same was renumbered as O.P.No.40 of 2024. It is to be noticed that the above-referred interim order was passed in this civil revision petition on 08.07.2024. It is stated in the report that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the present civil revision petition, the parties are appearing before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole and to avoid undue prejudice, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram returned the entire record pertaining to O.P.No.16 of 2022 to the learned Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Razole. 5. Heard Sri. D.V.V.S.S.N.H. Bhujangarao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Devasri Roshan, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the entire facts of the case and further contended that when a Family Court is functioning at Rajamahendravaram, the respondent ought not to have sought for transfer of the petition to the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram and the same should not have been 6 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 entertained by the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravarm as it is contrary to Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Court Act. Hence, learned counsel requested to allow this revision petition by setting aside the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram and contended that the petition filed by the petitioner herein need not be transferred to the Family Court, Rajamahendravaram as the Court of the Senior Civil Judge has jurisdiction to deal with such petitions. He further submitted that the order passed by the Court below need not be interfered with in any manner and sought dismissal of this revision petition. 8. Perused the entire material available on record. 9. It can be seen from the material available on record that originally, the petitioner filed O.P.No.16 of 2022 on the file of Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole against the respondent to declare the marriage that took place between the petitioner and the respondent as void. Pending the same, the respondent filed a petition under Section 24 of CPC (Tr.O.P.No.155 of 2023) on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram seeking to transfer O.P.No.16 of 2022 from the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Razole to 7 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 that of Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram on the ground that the respondent is residing in Rajamahendravaram and is facing inconvenience to travel to Razole for attending trial in the aforesaid petition due to a health issue. For proper adjudication of the case, Section 24 of CPC is extracted hereunder: 24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.— (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage— (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and— (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may, 8 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.” 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with Section 24 of CPC, in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. SaravanaKarthik Sha11 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.” 11. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment is not in dispute and the fact remains untouched that the convenience of the wife must be looked at while considering transfer petitions. However, in the case on hand, the main contention of the petitioner is that when a Family Court is functioning in Rajamahendravaram, the Court below ought not to have transferred the petition filed by him to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 9 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 that the same is contrary to Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which reads as under: “7. Jurisdiction.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall— (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and (b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation.—The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:— (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstance arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; 10 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise— (a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and (b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment. 8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings.—Where a Family Court has been established for any area,— (a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section; (b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or powers under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any magistrate under the said Code; and 11 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 (ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established.” 12. Admittedly, as per Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court has jurisdiction that is exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings between the parties seeking nullity of marriage or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage and other such proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation to sub- section (1) of Section 7. If a Family Court is not constituted in a particular area, the proceedings of the abovementioned nature can be entertained by a Civil Court of that area. However, Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain proceedings of the above referred nature, in a place where a Family Court is constituted. Once a Family Court is established in an area, the Civil Court of that area loses its jurisdiction and becomes incompetent over the proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7. 13. The Court below, in the impugned order observed that the petition filed by the petitioner need not be transferred only to the Family Court, Rajamahendravaram as a Court of the Senior Civil Judge has jurisdiction to 12 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 deal with the similar petitions. The said observation made by the Court below is clearly contrary to the provision of law laid down in Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act. It is not in dispute that in places where Family Court is not constituted, local Civil Courts are vested with the jurisdiction to deal with matrimonial cases and they are competent enough to try the matrimonial cases of the nature which are mentioned in the explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. But, when a Family Court is constituted in a place, the local Civil Courts of that place loses its jurisdiction to deal with matrimonial cases as per Section 8 of the Family Courts Act. In view of the fact that a Family Court is constituted and is functioning in Rajamahendravaram, the Court ought to have considered the same while dealing with the transfer petition filed by the respondent herein. 14. Article 227 deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Court and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial revision also even where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law, rather power under this Article is wider than that of Article 226 in the sense that it is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction and such power can also be exercised suo motu. 13 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 15. It is a well settled principle that the High Court can exercise supervisory power over the subordinate Courts under Article 227 of Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in “State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru. 16. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 17. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the order of the Court below is erroneous as it has failed to exercise discretion properly and such finding is liable to be set aside by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram in Transfer Original Petition No.155 of 2023, dated 27.02.2024 is hereby set-aside. No costs. 14 VS,J CRP.No.1331 of 2024 Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:30.10.2025 Gss/KAS