APHC010487092024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 397/2024 Between:

Polipongu Vijaya ...PETITIONER AND Polipongu Lokanadham and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.101 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, to the Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada, for trial.

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

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 29.06.1990 and they led a happy marital life for some time. During their wed-lock period, they blessed with two (2) female children. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife is staying separately along with her children at Vijayawada. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent No.1/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.101 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, under Section 13(I)(i) (ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage.

II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman staying separately along with her children at Vijayawada, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance for more than 400 Kms from Vijayawada to Tirupati to attend the case proceedings on each and every adjournment before the said Court without any male support, and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.101 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, to the Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Perused the material available on record.

5. Counter-affidavit has been not filed by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the respondent No.1/husband herein is a senior citizen aged about 64 years, the petitioner/wife herein deserted the respondent No.1/husband at about 20 years back and the respondent No.1/husband herein has been suffering with partial paralysis and he is senior citizen aged about 64 years. He further represented that it is not a fit case to allow the present transfer petition.

7. The Apex Court in a case of Geeta Heera Vs Harish Chander Heera¹ 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 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

(2000) 10 SCC 304

paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

9. On consideri