THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.225 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 withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, and to transfer the same to the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 11.02.2022 at Ramachandra Function Hall, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Visakahapatnam. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, in view of the harassment caused by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband herein, which was registered as Crime No. 67 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC, 354-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Disha Urban Police Station, Visakhapatnam. She also filed F.C.O.P.No.1722 of 2024, on the file of V Additional District & Sessions 2 Judge-cum-Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. ii. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed a petition vide F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage. 3. Heard Smt T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by both the learned counsel that the respondent herein filed Tr.C.M.P.337 of 2024, before this Court seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.1722 of 2024, on the file of Court of Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, to the Court of Family Judge, Tirupathi. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 24.12.2024, wherein the personal appearance of the respondent/husband in F.C.O.P.No.1722 of 2024 has been dispensed with before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam and request for transfer of F.C.O.P.No.1722 of 2024 is rejected by this Court and copy of the said order is placed on record. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the respondent herein is working as a Software Employee in Bangalore and she also contended that the petitioner herein currently working at Hyderabad and staying at Hyderabad. She would further contend that the petitioner herein is avoiding to appear before both the 3 Courts and that is the reason the proceedings are stalled before both the Courts. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed her reliance on Amruta V. Sachin reported in (2005 SCC OnLine Bombay 2808). 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner/wife has been currently staying at her parents‟ house in Narasipatnam and searching for job and she also brought to the notice of this Court that the wife also filed F.C.O.P.No.1722 of 2024, before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and both the matters i.e., F.C.O.P.Nos.1722 of 2024 and F.C.O.P.33 of 2024, have to be tried together by the same Court. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing with her parents in Narsipatnam. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage, and petitioner/wife also instituted a petition against the respondent/husband herein vide F.C.O.P.No.1722 of 2024, on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 4 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 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 on both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case that in matrimonial 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 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, seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, to the file of the learned Family Judge-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/husband herein is a Software employee who is currently residing at Bangalore, the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein is dispensed with in the other F.C.O.P.No.1722 of 2024, on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, therefore, it is also desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein in F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2024, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law. 12. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, where F.C.O.P.No.1722 of 2024 is pending before the same Court for consideration. The learned Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2024, to the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five (5) days from the date of receipt of a 6 copy of the order. The transferee Court i.e., Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2024, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when re-conciliation proceedings are being taken up or on the day when his cross-examination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal appearance is required as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge, Visakhapatnam is also hereby directed to dispose of both the cases i.e., F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2024 and F.C.O.P.No.1722 of 2024, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of appearance of both the parties and sent report of compliance to the Registrar (Judicial). Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, on 13.12.2025, at 10.30 am. Later the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein is dispensed with. 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: 19.11.2025 Issue CC on 21.11.2025 B/o. MH 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.225 of 2025 Date: 19.11.2025 Issue CC on 21.11.2025 B/o. MH