\-. . \ 0 APHC010397402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 245 OF 2025 Between: Pachigolla Prasanthi, w/o Pachigolla Kalyanji, D/o Pedapati Joji Kumar, Christian, aged about 34 years. Housewife, residing at D.No.58-15-1/A, Sanjeev Nagar, Near Bethel High School Road, Rajamahendravaram (Urban)- 533101, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND Pachigolla Kalyanji, s/o Siva Rama Krishna, Christian, aged about 41 years Deputy TahsiJdar, residing at D.No. 18-7-20, Kuddus Nagar, Near Loco shed Kedareswarapeta, Vijayawada, NTR 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 WITHDRAW F.C.O.P. No 181 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family court cum XIV Additional District and sessions Judge, Vijayawada and TRANSFER the same to the Family court cum IX Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, in the interest of justice. 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 GRANT stay of all further proceedings in F.C.O.P. No: 181 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family court cum XIV Additional District and sessions Judge, Vijayawada, in the interest of justice. / A i This Petition coming o for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and none appeared for the Respondent. The Court made the following Order: I 1 . 1 j, :! 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.245 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri M.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo dated 25.09.2025, along with postal track consignment sheet has been filed before the Registry and the same is placed on record. As per the said track consignment sheet, the notice sent to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein before the Court below has been served on him on 18.09.2025. Therefore, service held sufficient. But, none appeared for the respondent. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of 2. the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.181 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum- XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Vijayawada on 04.05.2013, as per Christian rights and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her daughter aged about 7 years are 2 staying at her parents’ house at Sanjeev Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC \ vide Cr.No.199 of 2021 against the respondent/husband and after completion of investigation, the Police had filed the Charge Sheet vide C.C.No.4951 of 2022, on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram and the is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.No.288 of 2023, on the file of the Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Court at Rajahmundry. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.181 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having a daughter aged about 7 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for same 3 the petitioner/wife to travel at a distance of approximately than 150 Kms from Rajamahendravaram to Vijayawada for attending the Court proceedings before the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, without any male support and that she constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.181 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same more was to the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. 4. Heard Sri M.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though registered notice has been served on the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein before the Court below, none appeared for the respondent/husband. Perused the material available on record. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her daughter aged about 7 years are staying at her parents’ house at Sanjeev Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and she had filed a Criminal Case vide Cr.No.199 of 2021 against the respondent/husband and the same was numbered as C.C,No.4951 of 2022, on^e file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 5. 4 Rajamahendravaram and the the petitioner had also filed is pending for adjudication. Further same a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.No.288 of 2023, on the file of the Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. The F.C.O.P.No.181 of 2025 respondent/husband on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum- , under Section 1869, seeking for dissolution of has filed XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, marriage. 6. The Apex Court i in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH the fact that “if a wife does place where the divorce petition is petition filed by the wife may be CHANDER HEERA', held by considering not have sufficient funds to visit the filed by her husband, then the transfer allowed.” 7. The Apex Court A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs as follows; 9. The cardinal principle for exercise ofpower under Section the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofJustice 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 soundness of both the parties, the social strata economic of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subseguent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they prevailing socio- are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the " (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 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 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 the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.181 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum- XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. 8. I / 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.181 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. The Judge, Family Court-Cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025 to the Judge, Family Court-Cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, 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. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Family Court cum XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. 2. The Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry. 3. The IX Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. 4. One CC to Sri M Pawan Kumar, Advocate.[OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VNA HIGH COURT \ \ DATED;25/09/2025 ORDER TRCMP no. 245 OF 2025 I 0 OCT 2025 ] vWNCigftnt Sectio seais^ Co' ALLOWING THE TRCMP