IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 66 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Tammina Bhavya, W/o. T. Nageswara Rao, D/o Varanasi Appala Narasimha patrudu @ Anand, aged about 29 years, R/o. D. No.4-1-63, KT Road, Chittinagar, Vijayawada. ...Petitioner AND Tammina Nageswara Rao, S/o. Naga Venkateswara Rao, aged about 34 years. Presently Residing at D. No.9-135/1, Opposite Sub-Registrar Office, Chinamushidivada, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam - 531173. Native Address; Aparaopeta, Pathapadu Village, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 to withdraw F.C.O.P. No. 718 of 2024, on the file of the Court of the Judge Family Court - Cum - V Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam, and transfer the same to the Court of the Principal Family Court at Vijayawada. % 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 stay all the further proceedings in F.C.O.P. No.718 of 2024, pending before the V Additional District and Sessions - Cum - Family Judge at Visakhapatnam, till disposal of the above Tr.C.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Simhachalam Karukola The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.66 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned counsel for the respondent/caveator is present. Learned counsel for the respondent has represented that the respondent has no counter and that the matter has to be disposed of on merits. 2. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.718 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. 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 14.02.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with a male child. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her son is staying at her parents’ house at Chittinagar, Vijayawada. The petitioner pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.(M.C).No.1446 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Family 2 Court-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.324 of 2024, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and the same are pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that she had also filed F.C.O.P.No.06 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Family Judge Court- Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband has F.C.O.P.No.718 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having a male child, depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 350Kms from Vijayawada to Visakhapatanam without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.718 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and 4. Sri Simhachalam Karukola, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 3 The material on record prima facie goes to show that the petitioner/wife had instituted a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.(M.C).No.1446 of 2024, Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.324 of 2024 and F.C.O.P.No.06 of 2024, seeking restitution of conjugal rights before competent Courts at Vijayawada and the respondent/husband is also attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid cases. Learned counsel for the respondent had represented that the respondent/husband is working as an employee and is staying at Orissa Stale and as such requested to dispense with the personal attendanoe of the respondent/husband before the transferee Court. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha'* held as follows: 5. 6. ‘ 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 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.” are On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered 7. * ^ 2022 LitfeLaw (SC) 627 4 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.718 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. Further, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e. the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.718 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e.. Principal Family Court, Vijayawada except on the days when his presence is required as per law. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.718 of 8. 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V .Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. The Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.718 of 2025 to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada 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. Further, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e. the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.718 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e.. Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, except on the days when his presence is required as per law. Eioth the parties \ 5 are directed to appear before the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada on 21 ,Qi4.2025, at 10 30 a.m 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. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTCWrOFFICER To, 1. The Judge Family Court - Cum - V Additional District Judge: Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The 1®' Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate: Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. Smt. Tammina Bhavya, W/o. T. Nageswara Rao, D/o Varanasi Appala Narasimha patrudu @ Anand, aged about 29 years, R/o. D. No.4-1-63, KT Road, Chittinagar, Vijayawada. 5. Tammina Nageswara Rao, S/o. Naga Venkateswara Rao, aged about 34 years. Presently Residing at D. No.9-135/1 Opposite Sub-Registrar office, Chinamushidivada, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam - 531173. Native Address Aparaopeta, Pathapadu Village, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 6. One CC to Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Simhachalam Karukola, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Three CD Copies SAM sree HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.66 of 2025 g 0 2 APR 2025 M ^ . Current Sastion ^ ALLOWING THE TRCMP WITHOUT COSTS