APHC010153442024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI B , V L -o ■30' > THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 89 OF 2024 O Between: Smt Yadia Hymavathi, W/o.YadIa Chinnam Naidu, School, Rayavaram, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. D,No.6-205, High ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Yedia Chinnam Naidu, S/o.Late Tata, aged 53 years. Cultivation, Residing at Vasanta Village, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition filed 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 order withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and to transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, for trial and disposal in accordance with law. X ■'1 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition filed 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 grant stay all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the Transfer C.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Koiluri Arjun Chowdary Counsel for the Respondent: Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary The Court made the following: X THE HON ’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO ■mANSFeRCML MISCBIANEOUS PETTTION No.89 of 2024 ORDB^ The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; 2. I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed on 06.08.1989 as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is^ staying separately at her widowed daughter’s house, with a newly born baby to her daughter at Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner pleaded that she has no independent source of income and she is depending u^on her widowed daughter and she has to take care of her daughter’s newly born baby. The petitioner further pleaded that since the date of desertion, the respondent/husband did not provided any maintenance to herself and on the other hand he has filed H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. '-•q II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman, to look after her widowed daughter along with newly born granddaughter, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 200Kms from Rayavaram, East Godavari District to Vizianagaram attending the case proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, on each and every date of adjournment without any male support. He further contends that the petitioner has a responsibility to take care of her daughter’s newly born baby and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. for 3. The respondent/husband has filed a counter affidavit by denying the material averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner/wife. Learned counsel for the respondent has represented that there are no merits in the present transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition and requested to dismiss the same. He further submitted that the respondent/husband has underwent a surgery and is unable to walk and that the presen^application filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Veerabhadra Chary, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on'record prima facie goes to show that the marriage between both the parties is undisputed by both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her widowed daughter’s house at East Godavari District and is taking care of her daughter’s newly born baby and further, the respondent/husband is staying at 3 Vizianagaram and filed H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is the specific case of both the parties that they have two children and their marriages also have been performed. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1912 of 2014, wherein it held as follows: 18. We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:- i) Availability of video conferencing facility, ii) Availability of legal aid service. Hi) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV CPC. iv) E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate. ” 6. 7. The facts in the aforesaid case law are that the parties therein are residing in different states i.e., the petitioner therein is residing at Madhya Pradesh, whereas the respondent therein is residing in the year 2014 at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. But, in the case on hand, both the parties are residing separately within the State of Andhra Pradesh. As such, the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case law different from the facts of the case on hand. It is further seen that, except the H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, there are no other cases that are pending between both the parties. are case in 4 m 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.SSaravana KarthikSha^ held as follows: 9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand 24 of the Code of the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding, in matrimonial matters, wherever Courts to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have are called upon to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the behavioural pattern, their standard of life spouses and their 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 convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. ” is the wife’s 9. On considering the submissions made by the learned both sides and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid considering the facts and circumstances of the counsel appearing for case law and on case that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiabte grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife. seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. Further on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/husband has underwent a surgery and is unable to walk, therefore, it is desirable to dispense with the personal attendance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, before the transferee ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 Court, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law. 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, is I ‘ hereby withdrawn and transferred to the to the Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. The learned Senior Civil Judge Vizianagaram, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, to the Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, duly indexed expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Further the personal attendance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram is hereby dispensed with before the transferee Court, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court i.e.. Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District as per law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, on 05.08.2025, at 10.30 a.m. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, which is under transfer, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day "Q when re-conciliation proceedings are being taken up or on the day when his cross- examination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal f 'i as appearance is required Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. as directed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. if any pending and the Interim order Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER , Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, at Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) District. 3. Smt Yadia Hymavathi, W/o.YadIa Chinnam Naidu, D.No.6-205, High Mandal, East Godavari District. School, Rayavaram, Rayavaram 4. Yedia Chinnam Naidu S/o.Late Tata, Residing Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5. One CC to Sri Kolluri Arjun 6. One CC to Sri V.Veerabhadra 7. Two CD Copies at Vasanta Village Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] I Chary, Advocate [OPUC] BSVx sree HIGH COURT DATED:19/06/2025 ORDER TRCMP No.89 of 2024 X ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P. WITHOUT COSTS