Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 965 (AP)

Narava (Bogarapu) Suryakanta W/o Vamsi Vizianagaram v. Narava Vamsi Krishna S/o Adinarayana

2025-08-12

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2025
- ORDER : 1. 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 F.C.O.P. No.1417 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court-cum-III  Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 21.04.2019, at Ambativalasa, Vizianagaram District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents’ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Ambativalasa Village Vizianagaram District. The petitioner/wife pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband and his family members, dated 06.07.2024, in F.I.R.No.128 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Bondapalli Police Station, the same is pending for investigation. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P. No.1417 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that she being a woman, residing separately at her parents’ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Ambativalasa Village, Vizianagaram District, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 400 Kms from Ambativalasa Village to Vijayawada to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.1417 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court- cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. - 3. - 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that except making bald allegations in the affidavit of the petitioner against the respondent/husband herein, there are no valid grounds to allow the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. He would further contend that the respondent/husband herein is a software engineer and is currently residing in Hyderabad and in case, if the present case is transfer from Vijayawada to Vizianagaram, he has to invariably apply the leaves for attending the Court at Vizianagaram. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing at her parents’ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Ambativalasa Village, Vizianagaram District and she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband i.e., a Criminal Case in F.I.R.No.128 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Bondapalli Police Station, the same is pending for investigation. Furthermore, the material on record discloses that the respondent/husband has instituted F.C.O.P. No.1417 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 7. The Apex Court in a case of Geeta Heera Vs. Harish Chander 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.” 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 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. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 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. ” - 9. 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 case that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband and petitioner/wife has been staying separately at Ambativalasa Village, Vizianagaram District and it is very difficult for her to travel from Ambativalasa Village to Vijayawada which is situated at a distance of more than 400 kms, 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 F.C.O.P. No.1417 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that, since the respondent/husband herein is a software engineer and currently working in Hyderabad and therefore, it is desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.1417 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, before the transferee Court, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law. - 10. - 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and F.C.O.P. No.1417 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram. The learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P. No.1417 of 2024, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram, 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, Vizianagaram, on 17.09.2025, at 10.30 a.m. Later the learned Judge, Family Court, Vizianagaram, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e. the petitioner in F.C.O.P. No.1417 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, Vizianagaram. 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.