APHCj^l 0172072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIVIARAVATI (a WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBE^J"/^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 123 OF 9()7R ■t I I ■¥- Between: Padala Sri Satya, W/o Sudabathula Anjani Pavan Krishna Aged 24 Years, Occ-Employ, R/o D. NO 1-199/1, Vemulavada,533462, Karapa Mandal East Godavari srisatvapadala7@qmail.com Near Ice Mill Centre, District, EMail- ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Sudabathula Anjani Pavan Krishna, S/o Naga Sai Krishna, Aged 30 Years, Occ- Software Employee, Currently Residing Missouri, USA Represented R/o D. Bhimavaram 534210West .com by GPA Holder Sudabathula Padmavathi, W/o Naga Sai Krishna NO 13-20-33, Nallamvari Thota, Gunupudi Goddvari District EMail- sapavankrishna@qmail ...Respondent Petition Under Section 24(2) of the C.P.C. Praying circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw H.M.O.P No 10 OF 2025 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram West Godavari District, and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada , East Godavari District. that in the 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 of H.M.O.P No. 10 of 2025 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.V.S.S.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Medapati Santosh Reddy The Court made the following order: % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.123 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.10 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari District. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 2. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their I. marriage has been performed at Kakinada District on 18.04.2024. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Kakinada, East Godavari District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.31 of 2023, on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry and a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.18 of 2025, on the file of the VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the pompetent Courts at Kakinada. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the "-pespondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2025, on the file of the , 56 2 Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, under Section 12(1 )(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for nullity of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of approximately morethan 120 Kms for attending the Court proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, 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.10 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner seeking to transfer the aforesaid case from the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District to the Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari District and requested to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. He further contended that the respondent/husband is working as a Software Employee and is currently residing at United States of America (USA), if this Court is inclined to transfer the case from Bhimavaram to Kakinada, the personal attendance of the respondent/husband may be dispensed with before the transferee Court. % 3 4. Heard Sri K.V.S.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Medapati Santhosh Reddy, learned counsel for the Perused the material available on record. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Kakinada, East Godavari District and depending the mercy of her parents ahd the petitioner had filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.31 of 2023, on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry and a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.18 of 2025 the file of the VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. 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.” The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows: respondent. 5. upon on 6. 7. “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 ^ (2000) ip see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 f 4^*- 4 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 and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid 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.10 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari District. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the respondent/husband is working as a Software Employee and is staying at United States of America (USA), the 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 Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari District. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari District. The Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2025 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari 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. Later the learned 9. % 5 / Prindpal Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, East Godavari District, is directed not to insist for the personal'appearance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2025, 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- exarriination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal appearance is required as directed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judgp, at Kakinada, East Godavari District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted^^e^rliep if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i^flON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// V' To 1. The Principal District Judge, Eiuru, West Godavari District 2. The Principal District Judge Rajamahendravaram. 3. The Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bhimavaram, West Godavari District 4. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada , East Godavari District 5. One CC to Sri. K.V.S.S.Prabhakara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. Medapati Santosh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies East Godavari District at Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED: 10/09/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO. 123 OF 2025 r: X 22 SEP 2025 ml,f ■3:^ Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P. WITHOUT COSTS