Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Thirumalasetty Mounesh vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha on 22 April, 2026
APHC010655512025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 112/2025
Between:
Thirumalasetty Mounesh ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. B VAMSI KRISHNA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 114/2025
Between:
Thirumalasetty Mounesh ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. B VAMSI KRISHNA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.112 & 114 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner has filed Tr.Crl.P.No.112 of 2025 under Section 447 of
B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw D.V.C.No.34 of 2025, on the file of the I
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle and transfer the same to the
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupet.
The petitioner has filed Tr.Crl.P.No.114 of 2025 under Section 447 of
B.N.S.S., Act seeking to withdraw M.C.No.41 of 2025, on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle and transfer the same to the
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurupeta, Nellore District.
2. The case of the petitioner/husband in both the transfer criminal petitions
is as follows:
I. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent No.2/wife and their
marriage has been performed on 24.02.2023 at Sullurupet as per Hindu
rites and customs. The petitioner/husband pleaded that in view of the
rumours created by the respondent No.2 and her family members
stating that the petitioner/husband is having an illicit relationship with his
sister-in-law, the sister-in-law of the petitioner lodged a complaint
against the respondent No.2 and one Miriyala Subramanyam under
Sections 79, 292, 351 (2) r/w 3(5) BNS vide FIR No.113 of 2025 and
after completion of investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet vide
C.C.No.254 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate ofFirst Class, Sullurupeta and the case is pending for trial. As a
counterblast, the respondent No.2/wife has filed a criminal case vide
C.C.No.370 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Junior Judge-Cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, under Section 85 r/w
3(5) BNS and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that
the respondent No.2/wife filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.41 of
2025, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle, a
Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.34 of 2025, on the file of the I
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and a case H.M.O.P.No.182
of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle,
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of
conjugal rights and the petitioner herein is attending the Court
proceedings in the aforesaid case before the competent Court at
Madanapalle. The petitioner/husband pleaded that he filed
H.M.O.P.No.155 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Gudur, under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
seeking dissolution of marriage.
II. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband further contended that the
petitioner is staying at Bangalore and it is very difficult for him to travel a
distance of more than 230 kms from Bengaluru to Madanapalle for
attending the proceedings in the cases filed by the respondent
No.2/wife before the courts at Madanapalle, on each and every date ofadjournment and the respondent No.2 and her family members are very
influential at Madanapalle and that the petitioner/husband is constrained
to file Tr.Crl.P.Nos.112 & 114 of 2025 seeking to withdraw D.V.C.No.34
of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle
and M.C.No.41 of 2025, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Madanapalle, and to transfer them to the Additional Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Sullurupet.
3. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the
petitioner/husband, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
No.1/State and Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.2 and 3. Perused the material available on record.
4. The material on record prima facie shows to show that the Domestic
Violence Case in D.V.C.No.34 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Madanapalle and the Maintenance Case in M.C.No.41 of 2025,
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle, are filed by the
respondent No.2/wife and the same are pending against the
petitioner/husband before the competent courts at Madanapalle. The material
on record further goes to show that the respondent No.2/wife is staying at
Chinna Thippa Samudram, Madanapalle Mandal, along with her son i.e., the
respondent No.3 herein, who is aged about two (02) years and depending
upon the mercy of her parents and she had instituted both the aforesaid
Domestic Violence Case and the Maintenance Case against the
petitioner/husband before the jurisdictional courts at Madanapalle, which are
pending for adjudication.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that instead of
transferring the aforesaid cases in D.V.C.No.34 of 2025 and M.C.No.41 of
2025 from Madanapalle to Sullurupeta, these cases may be transferred to
Chittoor. It is not the case of either of the parties that they are residing at
Chittoor and moreover, the petitioner cannot confer the jurisdiction of the
Court. As per the case of the petitioner, he is staying at Bangalore, but not at
Chittoor or Sullurupeta. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted and the cases
in D.V.C.No.34 of 2025 and M.C.No.41 of 2025 are transferred to Sullurupeta,
the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure for earmarking the
Courts having jurisdiction to try the cases would be rendered meaningless.
6. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 in both the transfer criminal petitions is
residing within the limits of the jurisdictional Court at Madanapalle and she
also instituted four (04) other cases against the petitioner/husband before the
competent courts at Madanapalle, and all the aforesaid four (04) cases are
pending for adjudication.
7. The Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1
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 upon1
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
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.”
8. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for both sides, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case
law that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be
considered than that of the inconvenience of the husband and moreover, the
respondent No.2/wife is staying at Chinna Thippa Samudram, Madanapalle
Mandal, along with her son i.e., the respondent No.3 herein, who is aged
about two (02) years and depending upon the mercy of her parents. In view of
the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the
contentions taken by the petitioner and as such, the present Transfer Criminal
Petitions are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
9. With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petitions are
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.
_______________________________
JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Date: 22.04.2026
SRT