APHC010376952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 222/2026 Between: 1. BRUNDAVANAM ALIAS SRUNGARAM SRINIVASA UJWALA HARI PRIYA, W/O BRUNDAVANAM RAM GOPAL, D/O SRUNGARAM RATAN KUMARAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O D.NO.5 D.NO. 102-9-221,6 LINE, NETAJI NAGAR, GURUKULAM SCHOOL, GURU NAGAR,BOMMURU VILLAGE, RAJAMAHEND RURAL MANDAL,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. BRUNDAVANAM RAM GOPAL, S/o Rangacharyulu,aged about 41 years, R/o S.V.N. Nagar,Ring Road, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District 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 topleased to transfer F.C.O.PNo.64 of 2026, on the file of the Court of the Family Judge Cum -III Additional District Judge, at Vizianagaram to Honble Family Judge Cum II Additional Civil Judge Senior Division,Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, else I will be put to irreparable loss and grate hardship. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayi in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceeding in F.C.O.P No.64 of 2026, on the file 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 222/2026 BRUNDAVANAM ALIAS SRUNGARAM SRINIVASA UJWALA HARI PRIYA, W/O BRUNDAVANAM RAM GOPAL, D/O SRUNGARAM RATAN KUMARAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O D.NO.5- 221,6 LINE, NETAJI NAGAR, GURUKULAM SCHOOL, GURU NAGAR,BOMMURU VILLAGE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND BRUNDAVANAM RAM GOPAL, S/o Rangacharyulu,aged about 41 years, R/o S.V.N. Nagar,Ring Road, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram ...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 topleased to transfer F.C.O.PNo.64 of 2026, on the file of the Court of the Family Judge istrict Judge, at Vizianagaram to Honble Family Judge Cum II Additional Civil Judge Senior Division,Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, else I will be put to irreparable loss and grate hardship. 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 pleased to stay of all further proceeding in F.C.O.P No.64 of 2026, on the file IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3606] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR BRUNDAVANAM ALIAS SRUNGARAM SRINIVASA UJWALA HARI PRIYA, W/O BRUNDAVANAM RAM GOPAL, D/O SRUNGARAM -384 NEW 221,6 LINE, NETAJI NAGAR, GURUKULAM SCHOOL, RAVARAM ...PETITIONER BRUNDAVANAM RAM GOPAL, S/o Rangacharyulu,aged about 41 years, R/o S.V.N. Nagar,Ring Road, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram ...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 topleased to transfer F.C.O.PNo.64 of 2026, on the file of the Court of the Family Judge - istrict Judge, at Vizianagaram to Honble Family Judge Cum II Additional Civil Judge Senior Division,Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, else I will be put to irreparable loss and grate hardship. ng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceeding in F.C.O.P No.64 of 2026, on the file 2 of the Court of the Family Judge - Cum - III Additional District Judge, at Vizianagaram and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 222/2026 ORDER: The Petitioner namely, Ms. Brundavanam @ Srungaram Srinivasa Ujwala Hari Priya has filed this petition seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026 from the file of learned Family Judge-cum-III Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram, and transfer the same to the file of learned Family Judge-cum- II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram. Petitioner’s case: 2. (i) The petitioner married one Brundavanam Ram Gopal, who is the respondent herein, on 06.01.2021 at Arya Vysya Sathram, Tuni, as per Hindu rites and customs. The respondent was working Priest in Gnana Saraswathi Temple at Vizianagaram by the time of marriage. This was a second marriage to her. Her previous marriage was dissolved by the orders of the Court in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2019 vide orders dated 22.10.2019. The said dissolution of her previous marriage was under mutual consent. The respondent having knowledge of the same, that he married the petitioner. After the marriage, she joined the respondent. After sometime, the respondent started harassing her. As such, she was forced to come to her parents’ house. She gave a complaint at Rajamahendravaram against the respondent, which is registered as Crime No.249 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. She also filed a petition for maintenance vide M.C.No.53 of 2023 on the file of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. She also filed H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2025 on the file of learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 4 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The differences between the parties have lead to filing of aforesaid cases. (ii) While things stood thus, the petitioner asserts that the respondent filed F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026 on the file of learned Family Judge-cum-III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner has to attend the said case at Vizianagaram. F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026 is filed at a later point of time only to harass the petitioner. She is currently residing at Rajamahendravaram along with her parents. It is difficult for her to travel all the way to attend the Court at Vizianagaram, as it is at a distance of 250 kms away from Rajamahendravaram. She is depending on her parents. She has no male support and it causes hardship to her. Hence, she filed this petition seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026 from the file of learned Family Judge-cum-III Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram, and transfer the same to the file of learned Family Judge-cum-II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 3. Notice was ordered to the respondent. Personal notice was sent and was served on the respondent. None appeared for the respondent, despite having knowledge that this Court has granted interim stay of further proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026 on the file of learned Family Court, Vizianagaram. 4. Sri K.Satyanandam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted his arguments on the strength of the pleadings of the petitioner contending that the petitioner has moved different reports and applications at the Courts at Rajamahendravaram. She is residing with her parents. As such, she cannot travel all the way as she is a housewife. 5. Heard Sri K.Satyanandam, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Discussion: 5 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a case in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 1 and argued that when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, it is desirable that they should be tried together by same Judge. In the present case, the petitioner / wife filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas the husband / respondent has moved a petition for dissolution of marriage. Considering the travelling distance and hardship of the petitioner, the relief may be considered. 7. Learned counsel contends that, the petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2025 on the file of learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram for restitution of conjugal rights and also filed maintenance case in M.C.No.53 of 2023 on the file of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram. She also lodged a complaint against the respondent, which is registered as Crime No.249 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This would show that the petitioner and respondent marital relationship is under challenge. Different cases are filed and registered at Rajamahendravaram, would show that the petitioner is residing at Rajamahendravaram. The respondent-husband filed F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026 from the file of learned Family Judge-cum-III Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram, for dissolution of marriage. This is a subsequent event to the application filed for restitution of conjugal rights, by the wife. 8. In the case of Ajay Lawania v. Shobhna Dubey2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “4. It is well settled that if two petitions are filed under the Act, one under Section 9 and the other under Section 13, then, in order to avoid conflicting decisions, it is expedient that both the cases are heard by the same court. Evidence in the two cases should be 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 2 (2010) 15 SCC 354 6 recorded one after the other, arguments should be heard separately and thereafter, separate judgments should be delivered on one day.” 9. This Court has observed that in case of petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights, whereas the opposite party has filed divorce petition, both have to be tried by one Court. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that she has to travel all the way 250 kms to attend the Court at Vizianagaram. This would show that there is a substantial distance between the two places and it can be considered that wife would face the difficulty. To deny the case of the petitioner, the respondent has not chosen to appear despite service of notice. However, it has to be keep in mind that the distance for the wife is same for th erepsondent- husband also to travel from Vizianagaram to Rajamahendravaram. However, the settled law as laid in N.C.V. Aishwarya case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when two or more cases are pending and involving common question of fact and law, one Court should try. Further, in the present case, three cases are pending at the Courts at Rajamahendravaram, in which the respondent need to appear. Therefore, the convenience of the wife can be taken into consideration, apart from the existence of three cases pending at the place, where the petitioner is residing. Hence, I am of the view that the case in F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026 from the file of learned Family Judge- cum-III Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram, if transferred to the Courts at Rajamahendravaram, it would avoid conflicting of judgments as well as convenience to the parties as well as the witnesses. 11. In the case of Devisetty Harsha Chandra v. Devisetty Naga Bhargavi 3, this Court in the given circumstances has discussed with the personal appearance of the party to avoid hardships. 3 2023 Supreme (Online) (AP) 8276 7 12. In the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai4, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the appearance of the parties through video conference is permissible. 13. In the case of Bheemisetti Suryanarayana v. Bheemisetti Mrudula Naga Bhavani 5 , the Division Bench of this Court observed that the appearance of the parties in family matters for reconciliation through virtual mode is not permissible. However, there is no reference as to appearance of the parties through virtual mode for other purposes. 14. In the case of Krishna Veni Nigam v. Harish Nigam6, it is held that virtual appearance as an alternative to physical appearance is permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “14. One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if proceedings are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by the wife. The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be appropriate that available technology of videoconferencing is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties. We understand that in every district in the country videoconferencing is now available. In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilised and all the High Courts ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of videoconferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where one of the parties resides outside court's jurisdiction is one of such categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a request for use of videoconferencing, proceedings may be conducted on videoconferencing, obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. In several cases, this Court has directed recording of evidence by videoconferencing [State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 815; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 3 SCC 284 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 705; Budhadev Karmaskar (4) v. State of W.B., (2011) 10 SCC 283 : 4 AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2053 5 2026 Supreme (AP) 830 6 2017 (4) SCC 150 8 (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 285; Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 15 SCC 330 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 473] . ……19. We hope the above arrangement may, to an extent, reduce hardship to the litigants as noted above in the order of this Court dated 9-1-2017 [Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1912 of 2014, order dated 9-1-2017 (SC)] . However, in the present case since the matter is pending in this Court for about three years, we are satisfied that the prayer for transfer may be allowed. Accordingly, we direct that proceedings in Case No. 179A of 2013 under Section 13 of the Act titled Harish Nagam v. Krishna Veni Nagam pending on the file of IInd Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. If the parties seek mediation, the transferee court may explore the possibility of an amicable settlement through mediation. It will be open to the transferee court to conduct the proceedings or record evidence of the witnesses who are unable to appear in court by way of videoconferencing. Records shall be sent by court where proceedings are pending to the transferee court forthwith.” 15. The legal position is that the parties can appear through virtual mode. The appearance can be considered by the respective Courts applying the above principles and usage of the technology, unless their presence is required. 16. This Court is of the view that the distance which the petitioner said to have been travelled, happens with respondent also. However, considering the convenience of the parties and the petitioner and given legal position, this Court is inclined to transfer the case in F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026 from the file of learned Family Judge-cum-III Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram, to the Courts at Rajamahendravaram. While so, the respondent’s appearance is also considered to be dispensed with except on the specific circumstances. 17. For the reasons discussed above, I am inclined to consider the present petition. 9 Result: 18. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026 on the file of learned Family Judge- cum-III Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of learned Family Judge-cum- IX Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. (ii) The learned Family Judge-cum-III Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026, after duly indexed, to the transferee Court, i.e. learned Family Judge-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, as expeditiously as possible. (iii) The transferee Court, i.e. learned Family Judge-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, upon receiving the said F.C.O.P.No.64 of 2026, can re-issue a fresh number and proceed as per due procedure of law. (iv) Appearance of the respondent is dispensed with before the learned Family Judge-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, if he is represented through learned counsel, except for mediation / reconciliation, evidence or any other circumstances as the Court directs. (v) There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J Dated: 17.09.2026 ARR 10 103 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 222/2026 Dated: 17.09.2026 ARR