\ \ • APHC010482772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 301 OF 2025 Between: Sanadakka Divya Prasanthi, W/o.Sandaka Srikanth, D/o.Peddi Srinivasa Rao, aged about 34 years, Labor Colony, Vidyadharapura m, Vijayawada -520012, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Sandaka Srikanth, S/o.Venkateswarao, D/o.9-1-9, Brodipeta, 3'^'^ Street, West Godavari District, Andhra Palakol Village, Palakol Mandal Pradesh - 534260. ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition filed 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 C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025, on the file of Xth Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Narasapuram, and transfer the same to Family Court at Vijayawada or any other Court at Vijayavada. filed under Section 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances Petition affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be in C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025, on the file stated in the pleased to grant stay of all proceedings in Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Narasapuram. of Xth Petitioner. Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad Counsel for the the Respondent: None appeared Counsel for The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.301 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 30.10.2025 vide U.S.R.No. 123433 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 on 24.09.2025. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’. The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of 2. the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘the C.P.C.’) seeking for withdrawal of C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial and disposal of the same. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 3. I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 05.10.2022, in the presence of both side elders and well wishers at Sithara Function Hall, Vijayawada, as per the 2 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.301 of 2025 Dated 31.10.2025 Christian Marriage Religious, Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband were blessed with a male child on After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner/wife has been residing 31.07.2023. separately along with her child aged about two (2) years in her parents’ house at Vijayawada. The petition/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint dated 07.04.2025 against the respondent/husband herein, which was registered as F.I.R.No.22 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 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 C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, r— 3 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.301 of 2025 Dated 31.10.2025 seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately along with her child aged about two (2) years and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Vijayawada and the distance between Vijayawada and Narsapuram is more than 130Kms, 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 Narsapuram without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial and disposal of the same. Heard Mr. Dasari S.V.V.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Though registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was 5. served on him, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’.*^-- 4 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.301 of 2025 Dated 31.10.2025 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 Vijayawada and she has lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband under Section 85 B.N.S. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961. before the Mahila Police Station, Vijayawada and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional District Judge. Narsapuram, West Godavari District under Section the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of 10(1)(x) of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA\ 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.” The Apex Court in a Karthik Sha^ held as follows; 8. 9. case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana ^(2000) 10 see 304 ' 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 VGKR, J Tr.C,M.P.No.301 of 2025 Dated 31.10.2025 “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 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 seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s which must be looked at while considering transfer. ” economic are convenience \ X 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 for withdrawal of C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 11. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 on the file of the X Additional r 6 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.301 of 2025 Dated 31.10.2025 District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, learned X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari transmit the case record in C.M.O.P.No.131 of 2025 The District, shall to the Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, 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 granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Order Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The X Additional District Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. 1. The Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Srikanth, D/o.Peddi 2. Sanadakka Divya Prasanthi, W/o.Sandaka Srinivasa Rao, Labor Colony, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada -520012, 3. Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. Sandaka Srikanth, S/o.Venkateswarao, D/o.9-1-9, Brodipeta, 3"'^ Street, West Godavari District, Andhra 4. Palakol Village, Palakol Mandal, Pradesh - 534260. One CC to Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies BSV 6. vna I \ \ \ \ \ HIGH COURT \ \ DATED;31/10/2025 ORDER TRCMP no. 301 OF 2025 &\ *( 0 5 NOV 2025 Sectiot^^ I Q! •k' ALLOWING THE TR.CIMP WITHOUT COSTS