APHC010042292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 32/2025 Between: Buragapu @ Bhimasingi Vagdevi, ...PETITIONER AND Bhimasingi Rajesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.32 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw FCOP No.100 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge – cum – V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and to transfer the same to the learned Family Court, Srikakulam District. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at the Best Western Ramachanda Hostel, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City, on 27.02.2016, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Srikakulam. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the II Town Police Station, Srikakulam, under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.531 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that 3 she had filed DVC No.13 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Excise Magistrate at Srikakulam, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (Act 43 of 2006), and the aforesaid cases are pending for adjudication before the competent Courts at Srikakulam. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband has filed FCOP No.100 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge – cum – V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. He further contended that it is very difficult for the petitioner, being a woman, having children, depending upon her parents, to travel at a distance of more than 117 Kms. from Srikakulam to Visakhapatnam without any male support, and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw FCOP No.100 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge – cum – V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and to transfer the same to the learned Family Court, Srikakulam District. 4. Heard Sri E. Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no representation for the respondent. 4 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 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws, 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 1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw FCOP No.100 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge – cum – V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and to transfer the same to the learned Family Court, Srikakulam. 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and FCOP No.100 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge – cum – V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to learned Family Court, Srikakulam District. The learned Family Court Judge – cum – V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in FCOP No.100 of 2024 to the Family Court, Srikakulam, duly indexed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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 20th March, 2025 cbn 6 138 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.32 of 2025 20th March, 2025 cbn