1. The petitioner/husband herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.200 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and transfer the same to any other competent Family Court or to any Court trying matters under the Hindu Marriage Act in Chittoor District.

2. The case of the petitioner/husband in brief is as follows:

               I. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.1 and their marriage has been solemnized on 10.05.2023. The petitioner further pleaded that he filed a divorce petition vide F.C.O.P.No.209 of 2025, based on the severe mental cruelty inflicted by the respondent No.1/wife and the petitioner is working as a software engineer in the USA since 2014. The petitioner further pleaded that after their marriage when they moved to the USA, the respondent No.1/wife subjected the petitioner to severe cruelty and she was quarrelsome and used filthy language. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent No.1/wife was deeply and psychotically suspicious and used to throw objects in anger and isolated the petitioner/husband from his friends. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent No.1 also showed immense cruelty towards the parents of the petitioner and in view of this continuous and unbearable cruelty, mediation was made and the same failed.

               II. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has a reasonable and justifiable apprehension of bias from the learned V Additional District Judge, as the learned trial Judge is willfully frustrating the direct order of this Court in the case in F.C.O.P.No.176 of 2025. The petitioner further pleaded that the learned trial Judge directed the petitioner, who is staying in the USA, “to appear before the Court in F.C.O.P.No.200 of 2025, which is a maintenance case filed by the wife and the respondent is set ex-parte in the said case and that the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.200 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and transfer the same to any other competent Family Court or to any Court trying matters under the Hindu Marriage Act in Chittoor District.

3. The respondent No.1/wife filed the counter affidavit by denying the material allegations leveled in the affidavit of the petitioner/husband and the respondent No.1 pleaded as follows:

               I. The respondent No.1 pleaded that she is the wife of the petitioner herein and they have shifted to the USA on the ground of employment of the petitioner herein and she has been meted out physical and psychological utmost cruelty at the hands of the petitioner herein due to his vices and other avocations and finally the petitioner herein deserted the respondent No.1/wife by leaving her at her parents’ house on the guise of visiting his ill mother. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that the petitioner herein did not choose to appear before the Court in any manner to continue the proceedings, due to which the case has been posted from time to time. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that due to the protraction of proceedings of the above case, the respondent No.1 herein has filed another petition in F.C.O.P.No.200 of 2025, seeking maintenance for her livelihood and the same is pending for adjudication.

               II. The respondent No.1/wife further pleaded that due to continuous absence of the petitioner herein in both the cases, the learned trial Judge, by its order dated 09.11.2025, had set ex-parte the petitioner and with a view to curtail the court proceedings in the aforesaid cases filed by the respondent No.1, the petitioner herein have completely deserted her and against the order dated 09.11.2025, the petitioner herein have filed a criminal revision case vide Crl.R.C.No.1269 of 2025, before this Court and obtained interim order in his favour and the same is pending for adjudication. The respondent No.1 further pleaded that she approached the trial Court for protecting her marital life and the petitioner herein has filed a petition vide F.C.O.P.No.209 of 2025, seeking grant of a decree of divorce, without contesting the cases filed by the respondent No.1/wife and the divorce case filed by the petitioner is also pending for adjudication. The respondent No.1/wife further pleaded that without attending the Court proceedings in the cases filed by her, the petitioner filed the present transfer petition seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.200 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and transfer the same to any other competent Family Court or to any Court trying matters under the Hindu Marriage Act in Chittoor District, as such, requested this Court to dismiss the transfer petition filed by the petitioner herein.

4. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Public Prosecute appearing for the State/respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.

5. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.200 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court at Tirupati, to any other competent Family Court or to any Court trying matters under the Hindu Marriage Act in Chittoor District, are that he is having a reasonable apprehension that he will not receive any fair and impartial trial and more particularly, the Judge, Family Court at Tirupati, is exhibiting high restlessness for taking up this matter for the reason that the petitioner herein has approached the High Court seeking exemption from his personal appearance in the Court proceedings in another case vide F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, which was re-numbered as F.C.O.P.No.209 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court at Tirupati. The aforesaid apprehension of the petitioner herein is baseless and no prima facie evidence has been placed by the petitioner/husband herein that the Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Tirupati, is acting unfairly influenced by some extraneous considerations. As stated supra, “mere apprehension is not a ground for seeking transfer of a case from one Court to another Court”.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case law of the High Court of Madras in G.Shrilakshmi Vs. Anirudh Ramkumar, vide C.R.P.Nos.1994 & 89 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.12451 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.1800 of 2024.

               Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case law of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur ((2017) 8 SCC 746).

               Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case law of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anuradha Bhashin Vs. Union of India ((2020) 3 SCC 637).

               Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case law of the High Court of Delhi in Reena Chadha & Anr. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi ((2021) SCC OnLine Del 4336).

               Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case law of the High Court of Madras in S.Venkataraman Vs. L.Vijayasaratha ((1996) 2 LW 222).

               Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case law of the High Court of Allahabad in Prabhat Narain Tickoo Vs. Mamta Tickoo and Ors. ((1998) 33 ALR 253)

               Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case law of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Santhini Vs. Vijaya Venkatesh ((2018) 1 SCC 1).

               Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case law of the High Court of Gujarat in Palakben Ravi Luni D/o. Dhamasibhai Gobarbhai Rabari & Anr. Vs. None, R/Special Civil Application No.2494 of 2026.

               The facts in the aforesaid case laws are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. The personal appearance of the petitioner herein was dispensed with in connection with the case in F.C.O.P.No.209 of 2025 (previously, F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court at Visakhapatnam) and his personal appearance has not been dispensed with in the other two cases in a transfer civil miscellaneous petition filed by the wife vide Tr.C.M.P.No.124 of 2025 by this Court. Moreover, the grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the case in F.C.O.P.No.200 of 2025, are that he is having reasonable apprehension that he will not receive any fair and impartial trial and more particularly, the Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Tirupati, is exhibiting high restlessness for taking up the matter for the reason that the petitioner herein has approached the High Court seeking exemption from his personal appearance in the Court proceedings in another case. The aforesaid apprehension of the petitioner herein is baseless and no prima facie evidence has been placed by the petitioner/husband herein that the Presiding Officer of the Family Court at Tirupati, is acting unfairly influenced by some extraneous considerations. As stated supra, “mere apprehension is not a ground for seeking transfer of a case from one Court to another Court”.

7. As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner herein has not filed the transfer civil miscellaneous petition vide Tr.C.M.P.No.124 of 2025 and the respondent No.1 herein has filed the said transfer civil miscellaneous petition seeking transfer of the divorce case vide F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2025, filed by the petitioner herein, before the Family Court at Visakhapatnam to the Family Court at Tirupati. The respondent No.1 herein filed F.C.O.P.No.200 of 2025 seeking maintenance from the petitioner herein which is now pending before the Family Court at Tirupati, and the personal appearance of the petitioner herein has been dispensed with in another case i.e. the divorce case filed by the petitioner, but not in the present case, which is now pending before the Family Court at Tirupati. Moreover, after disposal of Tr.C.M.P.No.124 of 2025, the respondent No.1 herein filed F.C.O.P.No.200 of 2025 and it was listed on 25.09.2025 and also listed on 24.10.2025 and on 24.10.2025, the Family Court, at Tirupati, directed the petitioner herein to appear before the Family Court at Tirupati on 09.11.2025 and the petitioner is remained ex-parte on 09.11.2025, by the Family Court, at Tiurpati, in view of the non-compliance of the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the Family Court at Tirupati. The material on record clearly reveals that against the ex-parte order passed on 09.11.2025 by the Family Court at Tirupati, a Criminal Revision Case vide Crl.R.C.No.1269 of 2025, was filed by the petitioner before this Court and the same is pending before a learned Judge of this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any subsistence in the contention taken by the petitioner and the present transfer criminal petition is devoid of merit.

8. In the result, the present transfer criminal petition is dismissed. 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.