» APHC010197672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 136 OF 2025 Between: Palisetti Indira, (shown as Palisetti @ Palivela Indira in CT of HMOP), W/o Sri Palisetti Sai Kiran Kumar, Age 23 Years, Occ House Wife, R/o D.No. 59-17-1, Chandika Vari Street, Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada - 533 002 ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Palisetti Sai Kiran Kumar, S/o Sri Venkata Rao, R/o Door No. 1969 Rambhajan Street, Ponduru 532 148, Srikakulam District ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition under Section 24 R/w 151 of the C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the case in H.M.O.P No. 19 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam, Srikakulam District to any of the Courts of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kakinada. IA 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P No. 19 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam, Srikakulam District pending disposal of the present Tr. C.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N Siva Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada The Court made the following order: ■ P-; THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.136 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, Srikakulam District to Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada. 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 at Srikakulam District on 02.12.2022 as Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her female child staying at her parents’ house at Jagannadhpuram, Kakinada and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Kakinada under Section 85 BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide FIR.No.77 of 2024 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.200 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge- Cum-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.05 of 2025, on the file of the ill Additional Junior First Class Magistrate Court, Kakinada and a per are 2 Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.16 of 2025, on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, and the respondent is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Kakinada. 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.19 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam Srikakulam District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and having a female child, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than SOOKms from Kakinada to Rajam, Srikakulam District for attending the case proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam 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.19 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are no grounds to allow the transfer petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer from Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, Srikakulam District to the Senor Civil Judge, Court Kakinada and requested this Court to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. 3. 3 Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the 4. 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 along with her female child are staying at her parents’ house at Jagannadhpuram, Kakinada and she had lodged Criminal Case under Section 85 BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide FIR.No.77 of 2024 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.200 of 2025, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and the same is pending for adjudication against the respondent/husband. Further, the petitioner had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.05 of 2025, the file of the III Additional Junior First Class Magistrate Court, Kakinada and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.16 of 2025, on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, and the respondent is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Kakinada. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, Srikakulam District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha’’ held as follows; 5. on 6. ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 “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 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 standardof life prior to the marriage and subseguentthereto and the circumstancesof 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. ” 1 1 On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 7. considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, Srikakulam District and transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada. 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, Srikakulam District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada. The learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajam, Srikakulam District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2025 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy 5 of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada on 20.08.2025 at 10.30 a.m. 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. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam, Srikakulam District 2. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada, East Godavari District ' 3. Qne CC to Sri. N Siva Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4.., One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada Advocate [OPUC] 5. Palisetti Indira, (shown as Palisetti @ Palivela Indira in CT of HMOP), W/o Sri Palisetti Sai Kiran Kumar, Age 23 Years, Occ House Wife, R/o D.No. 59-17-1, Chandika Vari Street, Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada - 533 002 6. Palisetti Sai Kiran Kumar, S/o Sri Venkata Rao R/o Door No. 1969 Rambhajan Street, Ponduru 532 148, Srikakulam District 7. Two CD Copies Stu vna ■ > HIGH COURT DATED:30/06/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO. 136 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE TR.CMP