APHC010066942026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 38/2026 Between: 1. UPPADA CHANDINI, D/O SIMHACHALAM W/O SANDEEP KUMAR AGED 28 YRS, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, CONTONMENT VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT- 535003 ...PETITIONER AND 1. ERY SANDEEP KUMAR, S/o Bala Joji, Aged 30 yrs D.No.58/384-18-2-7-42 Near Pebbapuram Railway Gate Karthika Nagar, Chowtapalli Road Mariyapuram VTC, KADAPA-516001 ...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 case in F.C.O.P.No.197/2025 on the file of Family Judge Cum VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa and to Transfer the same to the Family Judge Court at Vizianagaram by Allowing the Transfer CMP and pass VGKR,J TR.C.M.P.NO.38 OF 2026 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 pleased to STAY of all the proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.197/2025 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kadapa including for appearance of the Petitioner/Respondent pending disposal of the main Tr.CMP and pass IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the prayer in Tr.CMP.No. 38/2026 as follows: It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to amend the Court name. Preamble Portion and Aggrieved Para and Tr.CMP Prayer by adding the Family Judge Cum VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa by deleting the wrong name Principal District Judge. Kadapa by allowing the I.A., and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KRISHNA RAO M The Court made the following: VGKR,J TR.C.M.P.NO.38 OF 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 38/2026 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 to transfer the F.C.O.P.No.197 of 2025, on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge - cum - Family Judge, Kadapa, to the file of the learned Family Judge Court, Vizianagaram, for trial and disposal. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 24.03.2024 at CPI Party Office, Kadapa. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents’ house at Vizianagaram. ii. The petitioner submitted that she has filed a maintenance case vide FCMC DDR No.74 of 2026 before the learned Family Judge Court, Vizianagaram. iii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the VGKR,J TR.C.M.P.NO.38 OF 2026 petitioner, filed F.C.O.P.No.197 of 2025, on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge - cum - Family Judge, Kadapa, seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Vizianagaram and Kadapa is more than 800 Kilometers and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned VI Additional District Judge - cum - Family Judge, Kadapa, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would contend that the respondent herein filed counter and denied all the allegations leveled by the petitioner in her affidavit and they sought for dismissal of this Civil Miscellaneous petition. 5. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/husband. 6. Perused the material available on record. VGKR,J TR.C.M.P.NO.38 OF 2026 7. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents’ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a F.C.O.P.No.197 of 2025, on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge - cum - Family Judge, Kadapa, seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, the same is pending for adjudication. 8. 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 VGKR,J TR.C.M.P.NO.38 OF 2026 paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 9. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws that, in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration rather than the inconvenience of the husband and therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.197 of 2025, on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge - cum - Family Judge Court, Kadapa. 10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and F.C.O.P.No.197 of 2025, on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge - cum - Family Judge, Kadapa, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Family Judge Court, Vizianagaram. The Family Judge Court, Kadapa, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.197 of 2025 forthwith, to the file of the Judge Family Court, Vizianagaram. Both the parties are directed to appear before the VGKR,J TR.C.M.P.NO.38 OF 2026 learned Family Judge Court, Vizianagaram, on 05.05.2026 at 10:30 A.M. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is hereby instructed, copy of this order shall be communicated to both the Courts below forthwith. 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: 15.04.2026 LSP VGKR,J TR.C.M.P.NO.38 OF 2026 55 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.38 of 2026 Date: 15.04.2026 LSP