IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 54 OF 2025 Between: 1. Palli Mangamma @ Kola Mangamma, W/o.Palli Srinu, D/o.Kola Appanna, aged about 24 years, R/o.Marripeta Village, Pasupam Post, Kollayyavalasa Panchayat, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram. 2. Palli Hasini, D/o.Palli Srinu, aged about 07 years, R/o.Marripeta Village, Pasupatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram. (R.2 being minor represented by her natural mother and Guardian 1®‘ petitioner) ...Petitioner/Petitioner in MC No.15 of 2023/ Respondent in FCOP No.332 of 2024 AND Palli Srinu, S/o.Late Chinna Rao, aged about 30 years, R/o.D.No.33-6- 28, Seven Temples, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam Urban, Waltair. ...Respondent/Respondent in MC No.15 of 2023/ Petitioner in FCOP No.332 of 2024 Petition filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the F.C.O.P No.332 of 2024 District Judge-cum-Family Court at Visakhapatnam Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vizianagaram. praying that in the on the file V Additional to the Court of the lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition filed 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 in F.C.O.P.No.332 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, during the pendency of the above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners :M/s.CKR Associates Counsel for the Respondent :None appeared The Court made the following: m THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.54 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for M/s. CKR Associates appearing for the petitioners has represented that the proof of service memo dated 02.04.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet is filed before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the Registry endorsement, the registered notice sent to the respondent 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.332 of 2024, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at Vizianagaram. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: 3. The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Visakhapatnam on 29.10.2018 as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her daughter aged about 07 years are staying at her parents’ house at Marripeta Village, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram. The petitioner No.1 pleaded that she had also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.15 of 2023, on the file of the Special Judicial 2 ' ^ Magistrate of First Class at Vizianagaram and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Court at Vizianagaram. The petitioner No.1 contend that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.332 of 2024, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court at Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of the Flindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. II. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioner No.1 being a woman having a daughter aged about 07 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of than eOKms from Vizianagaram to Visakhapatnam 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.332 of 2024, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at Vizianagaram. more 4. Heard, learned counsel appearing for M/s. CKR Associates appearing for the petitioners. Though notice has been served on the respondent, none appeared for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that the petitioner No.1 had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.15 of 2023, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vizianagaram under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to herself and also for the petitioner No.2 and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Court 3 at Vizianagaram. The respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.332 of 2024, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court at Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows: 6. “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 I I 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.” i On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 7. petitioners 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.332 of 2024, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at Vizianagaram. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.332 of 2024, on 8. the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court at Visakhapatnam is ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 hereby withdrawn and transferred V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court to the Family Court at Vizianagaram. The at Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the at Vizianagaram duly a period of two (02) weeks copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. case record in F.C.O.P.No.332 of 2024 to the Family Court indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within from the date of receipt of a As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. if any pending and the Interim order Sd/- P U V BHASKAR RAO assistant REGIS^R se6t1^ officer Judge-cum-Family Court, Visakhapatnam, //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The V Additional District Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Judge, Family Court, Wzianagaram, Vizianagaram District 3. Palli Mangamma @ Kola Mangamma W/o.Palli Srinu, D/o.Kola Appanna, R/o.Marripeta Village, Pasupam Post, Kollayyavalasa Panchayat, Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianagaram. 3. Palli Srinu, S/o.Late Chinna Rao R/o.D.No.33-6-28, Seven Temples, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam Urban, Waltair. 4. One CC to M/s.CKR ASSOCIATES 5. Three CD Copies Advocate [OPUC] BSV sree % HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.54 of 2025 allowing the TR.C.M.P. WITHOUT COSTS