APHC010579872024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 433/2024 Between: 1. SAPPA (PASALA) PARVATHI, W/O SAPPA VEERA SATHI BABU, AGED 28 YEARS, HOMEMAKER, R/O 40-14-16/1, DHARMA NAGAR, KANCHARLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SAPPA VEERA SATHI BABU, S/o Musalayya, aged 32 years. Daily wage works, resident of D.No.7-41, Geddanapalli Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada Zilla, Prathipadu, Andhara Pradesh. ...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 withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.149 of 2024, on the file of the Court of the Honourable Senior Civil Judge At Peddapuram, and transfer the same to the Court of the Honourable Family Judge At Visakhapatnam and pass s IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No. 149/2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapuram and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B.MADHU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. ANIL BABU K.R. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.433 of 2024 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.149 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for trail and disposal of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 14.12.2022, in the presence of both side elders, at Sri Venugolpala Swamy Vari Temple, Geddenapalli Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Thereafter, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents’ house in Visakhapatnam. The petitioner /wife pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members, dated 18.01.2024, which was registered as Crime No.13 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Disha Police Station, Visakhapatnam, the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner/wife also filed three (03) other cases against the respondent/husband herein viz., F.C.O.P.No.1354 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, F.C.O.P.No.1548 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband and F.C.O.P.No.1588 of 2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. r/w Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 7(c) of the Family Courts Act, and all the cases are pending for adjudication. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide H.M.O.P.No.149 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Visakhapatnam, the distance between Visakhapatnam and Peddapuram is more than 160Kms and it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Court at Peddapuram without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.149 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for trail and disposal of the same. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife residing separately in her parents’ house at Visakhapatnam and she has instituted four (04) cases against the respondent/husband herein viz., Criminal Case which was registered as Crime No.13 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Disha Police Station, Visakhapatnam, the same is pending for investigation, F.C.O.P.No.1354 of 2024, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, F.C.O.P.No.1548 of 2024, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband and F.C.O.P.No.1588 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. r/w Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 7(c) of the Family Courts Act, for return of dowry, all the aforesaid cases are pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband herein also attending the case proceedings before the competent Court at Visakhapatnam. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife herein i.e., H.M.O.P.No.149 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 6. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA1, 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 SHA2, held as follows: “9. The cardinal principles 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.” 8. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband, therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.149 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 9. 9. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.149 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, is hereby withdrawn and transferred Principal Family Court- cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.149 of 2024, to the file of the Principal Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five (05) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, on 18.03.2026, 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 19.02.2026 CVD