APHC010560732024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 422/2024 Between: Shaik Abdul Saleem ...PETITIONER AND Shaik Shameem ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner/husband filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw O.S.No.87 of 2021, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent/wife and their marriage has been performed at Podili Town and Mandal, Prakasam District on 21.06.2016 as per Muslim rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the respondent/wife along with her children are staying at her parents’ house at Podili, Prakasam District. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent/wife had lodged a complaint before Podili Police Station, Prakasam District, under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC vide Cr.No.188 of 2022 and the same is numbered as C.C.No.376 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate- Cum-Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/wife had filed a case in O.S.No.87 of 2021, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili, under Section 26, Order 7, Rule 1 of C.P.C., r/w Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and r/w Rule 123 of Law of Islamic Matrimonial Reliefs, seeking for dissolution of marriage and a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.21 of 2024, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili-Cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili and the petitioner/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Podili. The petitioner further pleaded that he had filed G.O.P.No.565 of 2022, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Guntur and the same is made over to the learned XIII Additional District Judge Court, Narasaraopet and numbered as G.O.P.No.66 of 2022, under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking for the custody of the children. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would contend that when the petitioner/husband went to Podili to engage a counsel for attending the case proceedings in the Maintenance Case filed by the respondent/wife, upon the instigation of the brother-in-law of the petitioner, one Mr. Mulla Basha had attacked the petitioner. Alleging which, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Darsi Police Station under Sections 126(2), 118(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS vide Cr.No.274 of 2024 and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner would further contend that the petitioner/husband is the resident of Narasarapet Mandal, Palnadu District and the distance in between Narasaraopet and Podili is approximately more than 100 Kms and that the petitioner/husband was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/wife seeking to withdraw O.S.No.87 of 2021, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 3. Heard Ms. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Inakollu Vekateshwarlu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 4. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the respondent/wife along with her children are staying at her parents’ house at Podili, Prakasam District and she had filed a Criminal Case vide Cr.No.188 of 2022 and the same is numbered as C.C.No.376 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-Cum-Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District. The respondent/wife had also filed a case in O.S.No.87 of 2021, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili, under Section 26, Order 7, Rule 1 of C.P.C., r/w Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and r/w Rule 123 of Law of Islamic Matrimonial Reliefs, seeking for dissolution of marriage and a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.21 of 2024, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili- Cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili. The petitioner/husband had filed G.O.P.No.565 of 2022, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Guntur and the same is made over to the learned XIII Additional District Judge Court, Narasaraopet and number as G.O.P.No.66 of 2022, under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking for the custody of the children. 5. 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.” 6. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha2 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.” 7. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent 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 no grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/husband to transfer the case O.S.No.87 of 2021 from the Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District to the Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and the same is devoid of merit. Further, on considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that the petitioner/husband is the resident of 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 Narasarapet Mandal, Palnadu District and he is working as a Government Teacher and the distance in between Narasaraopet and Podili is approximately more than 100 Kms and further, the case in O.S.No.87 of 2021, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District, is pending since four (04) years, the personal attendance of the petitioner/husband i.e., the respondent in O.S.No.87 of 2021 has been dispensed with before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District, except on the days when his presence is required before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District. 8. In the result, the present petition is disposed of and the personal attendance of the petitioner/husband i.e., the respondent in O.S.No.87 of 2021 has been dispensed with before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District, except on the days when his presence is required before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District, as per law. Later, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District, is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the petitioner/husband i.e., the respondent in O.S.No.87 of 2021, 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 Junior Civil Judge, Podili, Prakasam District. 9. With these observations, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of. 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: 26.09.2025 SRT