Penumathsa Indraja v. Penumathsa Srinivasa Raju @ Sriraj

Penumathsa Srinivasa Raju @ Sriraj 31 years. R/o. D.No. Vizianagaram. S/o. P.V.R.Srinivasa Raju 24-10-6, Rudrabatlavari Veedhi ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C., filed therewith, the High Court No. stated in the affidavit withdraw the F.C.O.P. Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District and transfer the Family Court, at Visakhapatnam that in the circumstances may be pleased to on the file of Judge, Family Court at Judge same to the 135 of 2023 that have Jurisdiction to try the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2()9fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated petition, the High Court may be pleased to in the affidavit filed in support of the stay all further proceedings in FCOP No. 135 of 2023 Family Court at Vizianagaram Miscellaneous Petition. on the file of the Judge, pending disposal of the above Transfer Civil Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, Advocate Counsei for the Respondent: Sri Pampana Padmakar, Advocate The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.178 of 2025 ORDER: 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.135 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram, Viziangaram District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

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 Visakhapatnam on 29.05.2021, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with a male child aged about 3^^^ years are staying at Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before Disha Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam under Sections 498-A and 509 IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.324 of 2022 and the same is numbered as C.C.No.4624 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.74 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.87 of 2023, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan 2 Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Visakhapatnam. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to inconvenience petitioner, respondent/husband F.C.O.P.No.135 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram, Viziangaram District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) 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 having a male child aged about 3 1/2 years, it is very difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings before the learned Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against respondent/husband seeking withdraw F.C.O.P.No.135 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram, Viziangaram District and transfer the same to the Judge Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has represented that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner seeking to transfer the aforesaid case from the Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram, Viziangaram District to the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam and requested to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. 4^ 3

4. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Padmakar, 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 a male child aged about 3^^^ years are staying at Siripuram, Visakhapatnam and she filed a Criminal Case vide Cr.No.324 of 2022 and the same is numbered as C.C.No.4624 of 2022, on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam and the same is pending for adjudication. Further, the petitioner had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.74 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.87 of 2023, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The respondent/husband has filed F.C.O.P.No.135 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court Vizianagaram, Viziangaram District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage.

6. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA\ 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.” Mzooo) 10 see 304 4 The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana

7. Karthik Sha^ 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 standard of life to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella 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 submissions made by learned counsel appearing 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.135 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram, Viziangaram District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

9. In the result, the present petition is allowed withdraw F.C.O.P.No.135 of 2023, on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram, Viziangaram Disfrict, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge Family Court at Visakhapatnam. The Judge, Family Court at Vizianagaram, Viziangaram ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.135 of 2023 to the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam on 08.09.2025 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. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI FICER To,

1. The Family Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 2. The Family Court at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. Penumathsa Indraja, W/o. Srinivasaraju @ Sriraj, Aged about 27 years, R/o. D.No. C-6, Ville Royale Prince Apartments, Occ: Housewife, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam.

4. Penumathsa Srinivasa Raju @ Sriraj, S/o. P.V.R.Srinivasa Raju, aged Veedhi, Rudrabatlavari 24-10-6, years, D.No. R/o. 31 Vizianagaram.

5. One CC to Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Pampana Padmakar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies GPC HIGH COURT DATED: 04/08/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO. 178 OF 2025 AU6 2025 ^ h '^CwfsntSeciion . ^ ALLOWING THIS TRANSFER CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS