APHC010108302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 117 OF 2025 Between: Dhanyamraju Satya Naga Gowri Neelaveni, W/o.Dhanyamraju Peddi Rajasekhar, D/o.Vedula Anantha Sarma, Aged 35 years, R/o.D.No.6- 118, Naidu Quarters, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner I AND Dhanyamraju Peddi Rajasekhar, S/o.D.Phani Babu, Aged 38 years, R/o.D.No.9-11-490, Kalavapadu Road, Ramakrishna Colony, Tuni, Kakinada 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 order to withdraw H.M.O.P.41/2024 from the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram and to transfer the same to the competent Senior Civil Judges Court at Visakhapatnam. IA Kin-1 OF 2025 oA of rPC Draving that in the circumstances Petition under Section stated in the affidavit filed in supp 41/2024 pending on the file pleased to stay ail further proceedings in H.M.O,P.41/2C2 of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. Kumar Naidaria i Kotha Naga Surya Rao ; Sri Sravan Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent made the following order; ; Sri The Court ) 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.117 of 2025 ORDER: 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 for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram and transfer the same to any other competent Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Visakhapatnam, for trial. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 12.12.2014, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock period, the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband were blessed with two children. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her two children al: her parents’ house at Visakhapatnam. In view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, the petitioner/wife lodgcijd a complaint against the respondent/husband dated 05.04.2024, in F.I .R. No.102 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before Disha Police Station, Visakhapatnam. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been 2. I. i VGKRJ Tr.C.M.P.No.ll7of 2025 ^ Dated 09.07.2025 2 filed by the Police and it has been numbered as C.C.No.2836 of 2024, on the file of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and she also filed a Maintenance Case vide O.P.No 1651 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, under Section 144 of B.N.N.S. Act, 2023, seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband the said two (2) cases are pending for adjudication against the respondent/husband. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pitihapuram, under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she being a woman, residing separately along with her two children at her parents’ house at Visakhapatnam and depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel which is situated at a distance of more than 130 Kms from Pithapuram to Visakhapatnam to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournmentwithout any male assistance and that she is constrained to file the present petition seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram and transfer the same to any other competent Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Visakhapatnam. VGKRJ Tr.C.M.P.No.117 of 2025 Dated 09.07.2025 3 Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 3. Perused the material available on record. 4. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her two children at her parents house at Visakhapatnam and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The material on record further indicates that the petitioner/wife had filed two (2) cases against the respondent/husband herein i.e., C.C.No.2836 of 2024, on the file of the 1 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and she also filed a Maintenance Case vide O.P.No.1651 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, under Section 144 of B.N.N.S. Act, 2023, seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband the said two (2) cases are pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Visakhapatnam. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has also instituted a case against the petitioner/wife herein i.e., H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 5. on VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.117 of 2025^ i Dated 09.07.2025 4 0 xhe 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.” 7. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA^, held as follows: “9. The cardinal principles for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice 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. ” On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. The petitioner/wife 8. 1(2000) 10 see 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (Se) 627 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.117 of 2025 Dated 09.07,2025 5 has been residing separately along with her two children and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Visakhapatnam, therefore. I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.41 of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram and transfer the Court at Visakhapatnam. request made by the 2024 on the file of same to the Judge, Family 9. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the FI.M.O.P.No.41 of 2024 hereby withdrawn and transferred on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram to the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram IS , shall transmit the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of case record in FI.M.O.P.No,41 of 2024, to the Judge a copy of the order. Both appear before the Judge, Family Court at a.m. There shall be no order as to the parties are directed to Visakhapatnam, on 13.08.2025, at 10.30 costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. order Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGIS AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To I- The Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2. The Civil District. 3- One CC to Sri Srava . Pithapuram, East Godavari District Judge (Senior Division); Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam n Kumar Naidana Advoca te [OPUC] Naga Surya Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Kotha 5. Dhanyamraju Satya Naga Gowri Neelaveni, W/o.Dhanyamraju Peddi Rajasekhar, D/o.Vedula Anantha Sarma, Aged 35 years, R/o.D.No,6- Naidu Quarters, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. 118 6, Dhanyamraju Peddi Rajasekhar, S/o.D.Phani Babu, Aged 38 years, R/o.D.No.9-11-490, Kalavapadu Road, Ramakrishna Colony, Turn, Kakinada District. 7. Two CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 ORDER TRCMP No. 117 of 2025 g IIJUIJBH g ^ Curretil Section ^£j>tMPArcrf&^ ALLOWING THE TRCMP WITHOUT COSTS