Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 904 (AP)

Rayapati Aswini v. Rayapati Kanaka Raju

2025-08-04

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2025
ORDER : VENUTHURUMALLI 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.377 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Poranki, Vijayawada on 12.12.2018, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her daughter aged about 4 years are staying at her parents’ house at Penamaluru, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.377 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and having a daughter aged about 4 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the case proceedings before the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur District, on each and every date of adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.377 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the distance in between Guntur and Vijayawada is approximately 30 Kms and there are no grounds to allow the transfer petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer from the Judge, Family Court, Guntur to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada and requested this Court to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. He further contended that the respondent/husband is a Central Government Employee and is currently working at Jharkhand, if this Court is inclined to transfer the case from Guntur to Vijayawada, the personal attendance of the respondent/husband may be dispensed with before the transferee Court. 4. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shaik Reshma, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 4. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shaik Reshma, 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 daughter aged about 4 years are staying at her parents’ house at Poranki, Vijayawada. The respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.377 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. 6. 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 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.” 7. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides 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 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.377 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the respondent/husband is a Central Government Employee and is currently working at Jharkhand, the personal attendance of the respondent/husband has been dispensed with before the transferee Court, except on the days when his presence is required before the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. 8. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the respondent/husband is a Central Government Employee and is currently working at Jharkhand, the personal attendance of the respondent/husband has been dispensed with before the transferee Court, except on the days when his presence is required before the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.377 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. The Judge, Family Court, Guntur, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.377 of 2024 to the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, 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. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada on 22.09.2025, at 10.30.a.m., later the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.377 of 2024, 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 Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada. 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.