APHC010075382026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 54/2026 Between: 1. PONNADA SRAVANI KUMARI, D/O RAMANAMURTHY, AGED 24 YEARS, HINDU, C/O KL NAIDU, FLAT NO.102, GUPTA AVENUE, CHANIKYAPURI LAYOUT, 0PP. INTERNATIONAL CRICKET STADIUM, P.M. PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530041. MOBILE NO 8500362409 ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANNEPU ANAND KUMAR, s/o Sambhamurthy, aged 30 years, Hindu, residing at Kesavarapeta, Etcherla Srikakulam District - 532402 ...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 toTo transfer the F.C.O.P. No. 47 / 2024 on the File of Honourable Court of the 3rd additional district judge cum family judge at srikakulam, may be transferred to THE HONOURABLE COURT OF 2nd ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P LAKSHMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.54 of 2026 ORDER: Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, as per the Registry endorsement, notice sent to the respondent was duly served. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’. 2. 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 transfer of F.C.O.P.No.47 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum- Family Judge, Srikakulam, to the file of the II Additional Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal of the same. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 18.09.2023, at Rampandu Pantulu Gari kalyanavedika beside TTD Satham, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and is working as a Faculty Member in the Department of Zoology at Tirumala College, Rajula Tallavalasa, Bhimuni Patnam (Mandal), Visakhapatnam. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment caused by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband, dated 30.12.2023, which was registered as Crime No.07 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 384 & 420 IPC, before the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, the same is pending for investigation and she also filed another case against the respondent/husband vide F.C.O.P.No.413 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking declaration of the marriage between the spouses as a null and void and the same is pending for adjudication. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein had filed a petition vide F.C.O.P.No.47 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Family Judge, Srikakulam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the same is also pending for adjudication. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately at Visakhapatnam, the distance between Visakahapatnam & Srikakulam is more than 100Kms and therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel to attend the restitution case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Srikakulam without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.47 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Family Judge, Srikakulam, to the file of the II Additional Family Judge, Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal of the same. 5. Heard Mr. P. Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Though notice has been served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service is held sufficient’. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. The material on record prima facie goes to shows that in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife herein has been residing at Visakhapatnam, she has instituted two (02) cases against the respondent/husband i.e., Criminal Case which was registered as Crime No.07 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 384 & 420 IPC, before the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, the same is pending for investigation and F.C.O.P.No.413 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking declaration of the marriage between the spouses as a null and void, the same is pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before the Court at Visakhapatnam. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband herein filed a petition against the petitioner/wife vide F.C.O.P.No.47 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Family Judge, Srikakulam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is also pending for adjudication. 9. 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.” 10. 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 taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience caused to the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking transfer of 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 F.C.O.P.No.47 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum- Family Judge, Srikakulam, to the file of the Additional Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam. 11. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.47 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Srikakulam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the II Additional Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned III Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Srikakulam, shall transmit the entire case record in F.C.O.P.No.47 of 2024, to the file of the learned II Additional Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) 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: 30.03.2026 CVD