APHC010102822026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 37/2026 Between: Malladi Chaitanya ...PETITIONER AND Malladi Radha Madhavi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 38/2026 Between: Malladi Chaitanya ...PETITIONER AND Malladi Radha Madhavi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: Reserved on 21.04.2026 Pronounced on 23.04.2026 Uploaded on 23.04.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.37 & 38 of 2026 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner has filed Tr.Crl.P.No.37 of 2026 under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw D.V.C.No.28 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, and transfer the same to any of the competent jurisdictional Court at Guntur, Guntur District. The petitioner has filed Tr.Crl.P.No.38 of 2026 under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw M.C.No.65 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District and transfer the same to any of the competent jurisdictional Court at Guntur, Guntur District. 2. The case of the petitioner/husband in both the transfer criminal petitions is as follows: I. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.1/wife and their marriage has been performed on 13.03.2019, at Machilipatnam. The petitioner/husband pleaded that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the respondent No.1/wife lodged a complaint dated 13.06.2026, before the Women Police Station at Machilipatnam, vide FIR No.44 of 2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition VGKR, J. Tr.Crl.P_37 &38_2026 Act and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet vide C.C.No.938 of 2022, on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise) Court at Machilipatnam. The petitioner/husband further pleaded that the respondent No.1/wife also filed H.M.O.P.No.152 of 2022, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Machilipatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the said H.M.O.P., was allowed by the trial Court on 30.12.2025. The petitioner/husband further pleaded that the respondent No.1/wife has also filed a Domestic Violence Case in D.V.C.No.28 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District and a Maintenance Case in M.C.No.65 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, and the petitioner/husband herein is attending the case proceedings in the aforesaid cases before the competent courts at Machilipatnam. II. The petitioner further pleaded that he filed F.C.O.P.No.643 of 2022, on the file of the Family Court, at Guntur, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband further contended that the petitioner is staying at Guntur along with his parents and it is very difficult for him to travel a distance of more than 100 kms from Guntur to Machilipatnam for attending the proceedings in the cases filed by the respondent VGKR, J. Tr.Crl.P_37 &38_2026 No.1/wife before the courts at Machilipatnam, on each and every date of adjournment and that the petitioner/husband is constrained to file Tr.Crl.P.Nos.37 & 38 of 2026 seeking to withdraw D.V.C.No.28 of 2022, and M.C.No.65 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, and transfer the same to any of the competent jurisdictional court at Guntur, Guntur District. 3. Heard Sri Venkata Rao Penumaka, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2/State and none appeared for the respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record. 4. As seen from the e-Courts case status of the Maintenance Case and the Domestic Violence Case filed by the respondent No.1/wife herein, it is noticed that the enquiry in D.V.C.No.28 of 2022 and M.C.No.65 of 2022 have been commenced before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District. The material on record further reveals that the respondent No.1/wife has filed a Domestic Violence Case against the petitioner and his family members and a Maintenance Case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the petitioner/husband. Admittedly, the cases in D.V.C.No.28 of 2022 and M.C.No.65 of 2022 are filed by the respondent No.1/wife in the year 2022, and enquiry has also been commenced in the said Domestic Violence Case and in the Maintenance Case. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted and the cases in D.V.C.No.28 of VGKR, J. Tr.Crl.P_37 &38_2026 2022 and M.C.No.65 of 2022 are transferred to Guntur, the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure for earmarking the Courts having jurisdiction to try the cases would be rendered meaningless. 5. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1 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.” 6. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, 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 than that of the inconvenience of the husband and as noticed supra, the enquiry in D.V.C.No.28 of 2022 and M.C.No.65 of 2022, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District, has already been commenced before the trial Court, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that at this stage, the cases in D.V.C.No.28 of 2022 and M.C.No.65 of 2022 cannot be transferred from Machilipatnam to 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 VGKR, J. Tr.Crl.P_37 &38_2026 Guntur, where the petitioner is currently residing. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and as such, the present Transfer Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. 7. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petitions are dismissed. 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: 23.04.2026 SRT