APHC010169042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 116 OF 2025 Between: Harika @ Vishnumolakala Harika, W/o. Bokkisam Gopi, aged about 32 years, D/o. Vishnumolakala Venkateswarlu, R/o. Door. No. 9- Road, Ammanabrolu Village, Naguluppalapadu Bokkisam 19, register office Mandal, Praksam District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Bokkisam Gopi, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 34 years, R/o. Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatia District. ...Respondent/Petitioner Under Section 24 of the C.P.C., Praying that in the Petition circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw the H.M.O.P. No. 107 of 2024 on the file of the Principle Senior Civil Judge at Bapatia, Guntur District and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District lA 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 all further proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 107 of 2024 on the file of the % Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatia, Guntur District pending disposal of the above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RAJA REDDY KONETI The Court made the following Order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.116 of 2025 ORDER: 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.107 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatia, Guntur District, and transfer the same to the Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 2. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Ammanabrolu Village, Prakasam District on 16.10.2021, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her son are staying at her parents’ house at Ammanabrolu Village, Naguluppalapadu, Prakasam District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before Naguluppalapadu Police Station under Section 85 BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.185 of 2024 and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.CFR 2326 of 2025 and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.CFR 2327 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ongole, Prakasam District and the respondent/husband is attending the I. ■ ^ 2 Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Ongole. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.107 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatla, Guntur District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and having a son, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 70Kms from Ongole, Prakasam District to Bapatla, Guntur District for attending the case proceedings before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatla, Guntur District, on each and every date of adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.107 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatla, Guntur District, and transfer the same to the Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there grounds to allow the transfer petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer from Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatla, Guntur District to the Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District and requested this Court to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. He further contended that the respondent is working as a Software Employee at Hyderabad, if this Court is are no 3 inclined to transfer the case from Ongole to Bapatia, the respondent/husband would face difficulty in applying leaves for attending the court proceedings before the transferee Court and therefore, requested that the personal attendance of the respondent/husband may be dispensed with before the transferee Court. Heard Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 4. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petiti'' her son are staying at her parents’ house at Ammanabrolu Village, Naguluppalapadu, Prakasam District and she had lodged a complaint before Naguluppalapadu Police Station under Section 85 BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.185 of 2024 and the pending for investigation. The petitioner filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.CFR 2326 of 2025 and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.CFR 2327 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ongole, Prakasam District. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.107 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatia, Guntur District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. 5. LI LI Wl 101■/'Wife along With same is 4 6. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA\ 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.” 7. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V.Aishwatya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows; ‘9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice 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. ” 8. On considering the submissions made by the learned appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid counsel case laws that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.107 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatia, Guntur District and transfer the same to the Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. Further, on considering the ^ (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the respondent /husband is working as a Software Employee at Hyderabad personal attendance of the respondent/husband has been dispensed with before the transferee Court, except on the days when his presence is required before the learned Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. the / 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.107 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatia, Guntur District, !s hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatia, Guntur District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.107 of 2024 to the Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District on 20.08.2025, at 10.30.a.m., later the learned Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.107 of 2024, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day 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 appearance is required as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. There shall be no order as to costs. .’I 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principle Senior Civil Judge at Bapatia, Guntur District. 2. The Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. Bokkisam Harika @ Vishnumolakala Harika, W/o. Bokkisam Gopi, aged about 32 years, D/o. Vishnumolakala Venkateswarlu, R/o. Door. No. 9- 19, register office Road, Ammanabrolu Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Praksam District. 4. Bokkisam Gopi, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 34 years, R/o. Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatia District. 5. One CC to Smt. Marella Radha, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies GPC vna 'I HIGH COURT DATED: 16/07/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO. 116 OF 2025 O S',' t$ vlUL Tm C3 m; ^ section . ALLOWING THIS TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION