Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 814 (AP)

Kalpana Baratam, W/o. Gopala Krishna Rao Baratam v. Gopala Krishna Rao Baratam, S/o. (Late) Baratam Appa Rao

2025-07-03

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2025
ORDER: V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J 1. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.2416 of 2021 on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta Srikakulam District. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1 and their marriage has been performed at Srikakulam District on 06.02.1998, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children aged about 23 years and 20 years are staying at her parents’ house at Sompeta, Srikakulam District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a Criminal Case before Sompeta Police Station under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.396 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sompeta and the same is pending for adjudication against the respondent No.1/husband. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.05 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sompeta and the respondent No.1/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Sompeta. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent No.1/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.2416 of 2021, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent No.1/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.2416 of 2021, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and having children aged about 23 years and 20 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 230Kms from Sompeta to Visakhapatnam for attending the case proceedings before the learned V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam, on each and every date of adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husbandseeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.2416 of 2021, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta, SrikakulamDistrict. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are no grounds to allow the transfer petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer from V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam to the Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta, Srikakulam District and requested this Court to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. He further contended that the respondent No.1 is a permanent employee at HPCL (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) and is staying at Bombay, if this Court is inclined to transfer the case from Visakhapatnam to Sompeta, the personal attendance of the respondent No.1/ husband may be dispensed with before the transferee Court. 4. Heard Sri P.B.V.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. 4. Heard Sri P.B.V.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children aged about 23 years and 20 years are staying at her parents’ house at Sompeta, Srikakula District and she had lodged Criminal Case under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.396 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sompeta and the same is pending for adjudication and she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.05 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sompeta and the respondent No.1/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competentCourts at Sompeta. The respondent No.1/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.241 6 of 2021, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at h Visakhapatnam, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. 6. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANGER HEERA, (2000) 10 SCC 304 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 Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 held as follows: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure Is that the ends ofjustice 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 standardof life prior to the marriage and subsequentthereto 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. 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 appering for both sides 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 considered than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.2416 of 2021, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta, Srikakulam District. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, as the respondent No. 1/husband is working as permanent employee at FIPCL at Bombay, the personal attendance of the respondent No.1/husband has been dispensed with before the transferee Court, except on the days when his presence is required before the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.2416 of 2021, on the file of the V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta, Srikakulam District. The V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.2416 of 2021 to the Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta, Srikakulam District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The V Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court Judge at Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.2416 of 2021 to the Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta, Srikakulam District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Further, as the respondent No. 1/husband is working as permanent employee at FIPCL (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) at Bombay, the personal attendance of the respondent No. 1/husband is dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., the Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta, Srikakulam, both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta, Srikakulam District on 31.07.2025, at 10.30.a.m., later the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Sompeta, Srikakulam District is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent No.1 herein/husband i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.2416 of 2021, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when re-conciliation proceedings are being taken up or on the day when his cross-examination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal appearance is required as directed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. 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.