APHC010430932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 285/2025 Between: 1. THAMBUTHAKA PREYANKA, W/O. V. KRISHNA PRATHIROOP, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.45/434-1, ROAD NO. 9, BALAJI NAGAR, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VEERABALLI KRISHNA PRATHIROOP, S/o V. Sreenivasulu, aged about 33 years, R/o H.No. 6-3-267-13, Flat No. 304, Sai Datta Towers, Near Crescent School, Ram Nagar, Anantapuram City, Anantapuram District. Presently residing in Kadapa and working as Protection officer. District Women and Child Welfare and Empowerment Office, Kadapa, YSR (Kadapa) 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 topleased to withdraw the F.C.O.P. No. 108 of 2025 on the file of the Court of HonT)le Judge, Family Court-Cum-VIl Addl. District 86 Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu and transfer the same to the file of the Court of Honble Family Court, Kadapa 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in F.C.O.P. No. 108 of 2025 on the file of the Hon hie Judge, Family Court- Cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, pending disposal of the above Transfer CMP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent: 1. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.285 of 2025 ORDER: Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, proof of service Memo has been field before the Registry on 22.09.2025 vide U.S.R.No.107871 of 2025 and the same is placed on the record. As per the Registry endorsement, notice was sent to the respondent and the same was served. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, „service held sufficient‟. 2. 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 transfer of F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, to the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, for trial and disposal of the same. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 19.06.2021, in the presence of both side elders and well wishers at Electricity Engineers Guesthouse (Sampalatha), Opp. JNTU Post Office, Ananthapuramu, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband were blessed with a male child on 19.07.2022. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child aged about three (3) years in her parents‟ house at Kadapa. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition vide F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately along with her child and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Kadapa and the distance between Kadapa and Ananthapuramu 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 Ananthapuramu without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, to the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, for trial and disposal of the same. 4. Heard Mr. Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Though registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, „service held sufficient‟. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. The material on record prima facie goes to shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child in her parents‟ house at Kadapa and the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. 8. 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 9. 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.” 10. 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 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 transfer of F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, to the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa. 11. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court-cum- VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, is hereby withdrawn 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa. The learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.108 of 2025, to the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, 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 Date: 28.10.2025 CVD