4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 95 OF 2025 Between: Tumparthi Anusha W/o.Tumparthi Dinesh, D/o.A.Venkat Rao, R/o.D.No.45-38-50, 2nd Floor, Ravishankar Nilayam, Jagannathapuramu, ■ Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner AND Tumparthi Dinesh, S/o.Gowrinath, Aged 40 years. Working as Compliance Officer, R/o.D.No.26-131, Papam Peta, Near Jonna Iron Mart, Kalyandurg Road Anantapuramu. ...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 to order to withdraw H.M.O.P.289/2024 pending on the file of Honble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu and to transfer the same to the competent Senior Civil Judges Court, Visakhapatnam. lA 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 Jk pleased to stay all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.289/2024 pending on thd file of Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge Ananthapuram Counsel for the Petitioner u. : SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI V NITESH The Court made the following ORDER : 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO IRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.9fi of ORDER: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘the C.P.C the H.M.O.P.No.289 of 2024 Ananthapuram and transfer the Visakhapatnam, for trial. 24 of .’) seeking to withdraw on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, same to the Senior Civil Judge Court at 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 12.10.2011, at Kallur, Kurnool District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock period, the petitioner and the respondent After that, due to the matrimonial were blessed with a male child, disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her male child aged about 12 years at her parents house at Akkayapalem Village, Visakhapatnam. In view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband in F.I.R. No.284 of 2024, for the offences under Sections 85 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha Act, 2023, (for ‘short the B.N.S. the petitioner/wife dated 12.11.2024, 351(2) of ) and under VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.95 of 2025 Dated 07.05.2025 2 Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam, the same is pending for investigation. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.289 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she being a woman, residing separately and depending upon her parents along with her child, at Akkayapalem Village, Visakhapatnam, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 800 Kms from Visakhapatnam to Ananthapuram to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she is constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.289 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Visakhapatnam. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there valid grounds to allow the petition filed by the petitioner/wife and the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition may be dismissed. are no 4 Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondent. VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.95of 2025 Dated 07.05.2025 3 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 along with her child aged about 12 years at her parents’ house at Akkayapalem Village, Visakhapatnam and she also filed a Criminal Case under Sections 85, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha Act, 2023, (for ‘short the B.N.S.’) and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Visakhapatnam. It is also relevant to say that the respondent/husband had filed a case i.e., H.M.O.P.No.289 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 7. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA\ 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.” 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA Vs. A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA\ 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 M2000)10SCC 304 2 202? LiveLaw (SC) 627 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.95 of 2025 Dated 07.05.2025 .a 4 shou\6 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. ” 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. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.289 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 9. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.289 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapufipm, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family 10. VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.95 of 2025 Dated 07.05.2025 5 Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.289 of 2024 to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, 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, Visakhapatnam, on 25.06.2025, 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. SD/- K.J.RAJABABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f ^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu, AnanthapLtr District. 2. The Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam district D/o.A.Venkat Rao, Ravishankar Nilayam, 3. Tumparthi Anusha, W/o.Tumparthi Dinesh, Floor, R/o.D.No.45-38-50, Jagannathapuramu, Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam. 2nd 4. Tumparthi Dinesh, S/o.Gowrinath, Aged 40 years. Working as Compliance Officer, R/o.D.No.26-131, Papam Peta, Near Jonna Iron Mart, Kalyandurg Road Anantapuramu. 5. One CC to Sri. Sravan Kumar Naidana Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. V Nitesh Advocate [OPUC] 7. THREE CD COPIES stu HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.95 of 2025 AND#^ C 1 s MAY 2025 3^ . Current aecuon S^OfsPATCWfg ALLOWING THE TR.CMP