APHC010433532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 279/2025 Between: 1. BETALA (DAKE) PRANAVI, W/O. BETALA AVINASH, D/O DAKE SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 301, ARUNA SOUDHA APARTMENTS, DWARAKA NAGAR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER AND 1. BETALA AVINASH, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 34 years, Occ Employee and Business, R/o. D.No. 61-8/1-7, Koti Nagar, Police Colony, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, NTR District, (Erstwhile Krishna 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.693 of 2025 pending on the file of XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge at Vijayawada, N.T.R. District (Erstwhile Krishna District) and transfer the same to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District (Erstwhile East Godavari District) and pass 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 pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings in F.C.O.P. No. 693 of 2025 pending on the file of XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Family Court Judge at Vijayawada, N.T.R. District (Erstwhile Krishna District) and pass 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim Stay granted in I. A. No. 1 of 2025 Dt 03/09/2025 and consequently dismiss the TR. C. M. P. No. 279 of 2025 with costs, in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KONDIPARTHI V RATNAKAR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.279 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.693 of 2025 on the file of the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Kakinada, Kakinada District, for trail and disposal of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 19.01.2017, in the presence of both side elders and well-wishers, as per the Christian Rites and Customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband were begot a female child on 13.02.2018. Later, due to the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner/wife along with her child aged about 7 years is residing separately in her parents’ house at Kakinada. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband she lodged a complaint dated 06.05.2024, which was registered as F.I.R. No.34 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Disha Police Station, Kakinada, the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that she filed three (03) other cases against the respondent/husband viz., Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.57 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, seeking maintenance, Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.28 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class, Kakinada and O.P.No.149 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District, under 32 of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and all the aforesaid cases are pending for adjudication before the competent Courts at Kakinada. III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein had had filed a divorce petition vide F.C.O.P.No.693 of 2025 on the file of the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 10(1)(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. IV. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, being a woman, has been residing separately along with her child aged about 7 years and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Kakinada. The distance between Kakinada and Vijayawada is more than 200Kms, and it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband herein 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.693 of 2025 on the file of the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Kakinada, Kakinada District, for trail and disposal of the same. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appeared through virtual mode, submitted that the aforesaid three (03) cases are pending before the competent Courts at Kakinada and he has no objection for transfer of F.C.O.P.No.693 of 2025 from Vijayawada to Kakinada. He further submitted that the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein may be dispensed with before the transferee Court. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife along with her child aged about 7 years are residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Kakinda and she has instituted four (04) cases against the respondent/husband herein viz., Criminal Case under 498-A of IPC, Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.57 of 2024, Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.28 of 2024 and Restitution Case vide O.P.No.149 of 2024, all the aforesaid cases are pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before the competent Courts at Kakinada. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide F.C.O.P.No.693 of 2025 on the file of the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 10(1)(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for 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 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 8. 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.” 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 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 for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.693 of 2025 on the file of the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court is of 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 the view that it is desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.693 of 2025 on the file of the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, before the transferee Court, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law. 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.693 of 2025 on the file of the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The learned XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.693 of 2025, to the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, 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. The transferee Court i.e., learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.693 of 2025, 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 III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 05.12.2025 CVD