(Prayer: Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw and to transfer the F.C.O.P.No.674/2025, filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner, which is pending before the court of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam, to Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam or any other competent Court at Srikakulam and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay for all further proceedings in transfer the F.C.O.P.No.674/2025, filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner, which is pending before the Court of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of main transfer CMP and to pass)

1. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, proof of service Memo was before the Registry on 28.11.2025 vide U.S.R.No.138725 of 2025, along with the Postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website and the same has been placed on record. As per the Postal Track Consignment Sheet, the registered notice sent to the learned counsel on record appearing for the respondent before the trial Court and the same was served on 22.11.2025. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’.

2. 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.674 of 2025 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajam or any other competent Court at Srikakulam, for trial and disposal of the same.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

                  I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 12.04.2017, in the presence of both side elders and well-wishers, at Kancharam Village, Rajam Mandal, Srikakulam District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Rajam Village, Srikakulam District. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband, dated 08.04.2025, which was registered as F.I.R.No.57 of 2025, 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 Rajam Police Station, the same is pending for investigation and she also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.4 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. Act 2023, seeking maintenance and the same is pending for adjudication.

                  II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that, with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband herein had filed a petition vide F.C.O.P.No.674 of 2025 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is also pending for adjudication.

                  III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Rajam Village, Srikakulam District, the distance between Rajam & Visakhapatnam is more than 200Kms and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel to attend the restitution case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Visakhapatnam without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.674 of 2025 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajam or any other competent Court at Srikakulam, for trial and disposal of the same.

4. Heard Mr. Chinnala Praveen, learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The registered notice sent to the learned counsel on record appearing for the respondent before the trial Court and the same was served on 22.11.2025. Though notice has been served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service is held sufficient’.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. The material on record prima facie goes to shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents’ house at Rajam, Srikakulam District and she has instituted two (2) cases against the respondent/husband i.e., Criminal Case under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Rajam Police Station and Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.4 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, under Section 144 of B.N.S.S., Act 2023, seeking maintenance, the same are pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband herein is also attending the Maintenance Case proceedings before the Court at Rajam. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband herein also filed a petition against the petitioner/wife vide F.C.O.P.No.674 of 2025 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is also pending for adjudication.

8. 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.”

9. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience caused to the husband. 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.674 of 2025 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajam.

10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.674 of 2025 on the file of the Family Judge-cum- V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajam. The learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.674 of 2025, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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.