APHC010072252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 51/2025 Between: Dudekula Fathima @ Shaik Fathima ...PETITIONER AND Shaik Saida Vali ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KASIM SAHEB Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur and transfer the same to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District, for trial. 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 performed on 15.02.2019, as per Muslim Rites and Customs. During their wedlock period, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with a male child. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child at her parents’ house at Gobburu Village, Peddaraveedu Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner/wife pleaded that she filed a Maintenance Case against the respondent/husband vide M.C.No.45 of 2022 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District, seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filedF.C.O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, under Section 26 r/w Order VII, Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and depending upon her parents along with her child, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which is at a distance of more than 150Kms from Gobburu Village to Guntur without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur and transfer the same to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District. 3. Heard Ms. D. Kasim Saheb, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Though the notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The Apex Court in a case ofGEETA 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.” 7. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA Vs A.S.SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA2held 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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.” 8. 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 to withdraw the F.C.O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur and transfer the same to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District. 9. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and theF.C.O.S.No.21 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District. The learned Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.S.No.21 of 2024to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (2) 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: 03.04.2025 CVD