IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 30 OF 2025 Between: Ratnala Harika, W/o. Ratnala Pradeep Kumar, Aged about 27 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Srinivasanagar, Kasibugga, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District ...Petitioner AND Ratnala Pradeep Kumar, s/o Prakasa Rao, aged about 38 years, R/o. D.No.39-3-16, flat No.203, Majestic Heights Apartment, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam District. ...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 withdraw the F.C.O.P. No.2426 of 2024 on the file of the V*^ Family Judge, at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings including my appearance in the FCOP.No. 2426 of 2024 on the file of the Vth Family Judge at Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the main Transfer CMP. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI A RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K JYOTHI PRASAD The Court made the following Order: 1 r THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.30 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 to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.2426 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husb and and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 07.07.2015, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock period, the petitioner/wife and respondent/husband were blessed with a female child on 14.10.201 S.After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her daughter at her parents’ house at Kasibugga Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.2426 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.30 of 2025 Dated 18.06.2025 2 seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she being a woman, residing separately along with her daughter aged about six (6) years and also depending upon the mercy of her parents at Kasibugga Village, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 200 Kms from Kasibugga Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District to Visakhapatnam to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.2426 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the 3. respondent/husband is working as a software employee and currently residing at Singapore. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the 6. petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child aged about six ,(6) years at her parents’ house at Kasibugga Village, Palasa Mandal, VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.NoJOof 2025 Dated 18.06.2025 3 Srikakulam District. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a case i.e., F.C.O.P.No.2426 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is 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 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 (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 VGKRJ Tr.C.M.P.No.30of2025 Dated 18.06.2025 prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the v\/ife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 9. 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 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 F.C.O.P.No.2426 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-cum- Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/husband is a software employee and currently residing in Singapore, therefore, it is desirable to dispense with the personal attendance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.2426 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-cum- Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam, before the transferee Court, except the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law. on VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.30of2025 Dated 18.06.2025 5 In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and 10. F.C.O.P.No.2426 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-cum- Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the to the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. The learned V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.2426 of 2024,to the Senior Civil f Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, 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. Further the personal attendance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.2426 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge Visakhapatnam, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e. Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, on 06.08.2025, at 10.30 a.m. Later the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitionerinF.C.O. P.No.2426 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 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.30of2025 Dated 18.06.2025 4. 6 \ as directed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. Srikakulam District. 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/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE’ OFFICER To, The Additional District Judge-cum- Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam district The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Sompeta, Srikakulam District 1. 2. 3. Ratnala Pradeep Kumar, s/o Prakasa Rao, aged about 38 years, R/o. D.No.39-3-16, flat No.203, Majestic Heights Apartment, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam District. 4. Ratnala Harika, W/o. Ratnala Pradeep Kumar, Aged about 27 years Occ. Housewife, R/o. Srinivasanagar, Kasibugga, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District 5. One CC to Sri. A Ravi Shankar Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. K Jyothi Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies Stu vna HIGH COURT DATED: 18/06/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.30 of 2025 2 If JUN 2025 V aS? '■"■Sgsasisa^/ ALLOWING THE TR.CMP