APHC010060342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 40/2025 Between: Mallika @ Bevara Yamini ...PETITIONER AND Bevara Durga Prasad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHINNALA PRAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.40 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw FCOP No.1670 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, and to transfer the same to the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, or to any other competent Court at Srikakulam. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Railway Institute of Function Hall, near Gulabi Thota, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, on 12.12.2021, as per the Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Talada Village, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District, now Vizianagaram District. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Santhakaviti Police Station, Vizianagaram District, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which was later registered as Cr.No.118 of 2024, against the respondent/husband and his family members. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed 3 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.706 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam, and the same was disposed of and the respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the same is pending for adjudication. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband has filed FCOP No.1670 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, seeking for dissolution of marriage. He further contend that it is very difficult for the petitioner, being a woman and having children, depending upon her parents, to travel at a distance of more than 470 kms. from Talada Village, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District, to Vijayawada without any male support, and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw FCOP No.1670 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, and to transfer the same to the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, or to any other competent Court at Srikakulam. 4. Heard Sri Chinnala Praveen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no 4 representation for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. 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.” 6. 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.” 7. On considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws, 1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 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 FCOP No.1670 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, and to transfer the same to the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam. 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and FCOP No.1670 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam. The learned Family Court Judge, Vijayawada, shall transmit the case record in FCOP No.1670 of 2024 to the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, 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 25th March, 2025 cbn 6 79 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.40 of 2025 25th March, 2025 cbn