APHC010409102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 264/2025 Between: 1. PERURI ANUPAMA, W/O. KOTHA RAHUL, D/O. PERURI SURYA PRAKASH, AGED 28 R/O D.NO 86-8-3/2, TILAK ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE.RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KOTHA RAHUL, S/o. Late Mohan Rao, Aged 32 Years, R/o D.No. 16- 16-283, Satyannarayana Swamy Temple Street, 2nd Lane, Alii Nagar, Kothapeta, Guntur, A.P. ...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 may be pleased to order withdraw F.C.O.P. No. 1431 of 2021 pending before the Family Court cum XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and be transferred to the Family Court, Rajahmundry and pass any such IA 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.1431 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and pass such IA NO: 2 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 vacating the interim stay granted Dated.22.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.1/2025 in Tr.C.M.P.No.264/2025 by dismissing the Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K V VIJAYA KUMAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.264 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 for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.1431 of 2024, pending before the Family Court- cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, for trail and disposal of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 22.04.2016, at Kusuma Haranadha Kalyanamandapam, near I Town Kaleswarao market, Tarapeta, Vijayawada, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Rajahmundry and working in a Private Firm, the same was undisputed by the respondent/husband. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint dated 05.12.2021, against the respondent/husband herein, which was registered as Crime No.245 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Rajahmundry, after completion of investigation, Police filed a charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.5029 of 2022, on the file of the XIV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry and also filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.19 of 2022 on the file of the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and the said two (02) cases are pending for adjudication against the respondent/husband before the competent Courts at Rajahmundry. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed a divorce petition vide F.C.O.P.No.1431 of 2024, pending before the Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately at Rajahmundry and the distance between Rajahmundry and Vijayawada is more than 150Kms, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband, before the Court at Vijayawada without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.1431 of 2024, pending before the Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, for trial and disposal of the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the parents of the petitioner/wife herein are residing at Vijayawada and there is no hardship to the petitioner/wife to appear before the Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada. He further submitted that there are no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner and the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition may be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed a reliance on the Order dated 27.08.2024, passed by this Court in Gaddam Jyothi Ratnakumari Vs. Maddu Samson Ratnasandeep vide Tr.C.M.P.No.226 of 2023. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. 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 at Rajahmundry and the petitioner/wife herein had filed (02) cases against the respondent/husband herein i.e., C.C.No.5029 of 2022, on the file of the XIV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry and Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.19 of 2022 on the file of the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and the said two (2) cases are pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Rajahmundry. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has also instituted a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife herein i.e., F.C.O.P.No.1431 of 2024, pending before the Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 9. 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.” 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 10. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA2, 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 prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 11. 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. The petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Rajahmundry, therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.1431 of 2024, pending before the Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 12. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.1431 of 2024, pending before the Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The learned Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.1431 of 2024, to the Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Judge, Family Court, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, on 03.12.2025, 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 29.10.2025 CVD