APHC010451872024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 336/2024 Between:

Dantuluri Rama Devi ...PETITIONER AND Kakarlapudi Chandra Sekhar Varma ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent:

1. V V RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.336 of 2024

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.1112 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Family Court at Vizianagaram.

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

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying separately at Vizianagaram and she has been working as Professor in ECE Department of MVGR Engineering College, Vizianagaram. She further pleaded that as she is aged about 51 years, it is difficult for her to travel every day from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram to attend the college and therefore, she was shifted from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram. The petitioner further pleaded that, to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed F.C.O.P.No.1112 of 2024 on the file of the Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib)(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage.

II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman, it is very difficult for her to appear before the Court at Visakhapatnam on each and every adjournment and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1112 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Family Court at Vizianagaram.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Perused the material available on record.

5. Averments in the affidavit of the petitioner clearly goes to show that initially she had travelled from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram, for the purpose of job every day and was used to look after her family. She further pleaded that the respondent has no proper job to run the family. The distance between Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram is hardly about 50 Kms and frequent transport facility is there from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram. It is true that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered than that of the inconvenience of the husband. But in the case on hand, the wife is a permanent employee and the respondent/husband has no proper job to run the family, as per the own averments of the affidavit of the petitioner/wife.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of Apex Court in a case of Delma Lubna Coelho vs. Edmond Clint Fernandes, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 440, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-

“18. Number of Transfer Petitions are filed in matrimonial cases, primarily by the wives seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband. This Court normally has been accepting the prayer made while showing leniency towards ladies. In Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197, this Court observed that may be this leniency was being misused by women. Hence, each and every case has to be considered on its own merits.”

7. On considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since no other cases are pending in between wife and husband at Vizianagaram, except F.C.O.P.No.1112 of 2024 and the same is pending before the Family Court at Visakhapatnam and the same case stands posted for the appearance of the petitioner