APHC010234002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.152 of 2025 Between: Derangula Devi, W/o. Vaddi Venkata Siva Mouli, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. D.No.12-2-224, Ramachandra Nagar, Anantapur Town and District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND A/addi Venkata Siva Mouli, S/o. Vaddi Venkateswarulu, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. D.No.24/100, Maddigitia Peta, Nandikotkur, Nandyal District. ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition 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 withdraw the case HMOP.No.32/2024 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Court of SenidrCivil Judge, Nandikotkur, Nandyal District (erstwhile Kurnool District) and transfer the same to the Hon'ble court of Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, Anantapur District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated , the High Court may be pleased to of the petitioner Petition in the affidavit filed in support of the petition stay all further proceedings including appearance HMOP.No.32 of 2024 pending on the file of the Hon'bie court of Senior Crvrl in (erstwhile Kurnool District), pending Nandikotkur, Nandyal District Judge disposal of the Transfer petition. : Sri P Sravan Kumar Reddy Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent ; None Appeared The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.152 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri P.Sravan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo is filed before the Registry. As per the proof of service memo. the registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him. Therefore, service held sufficient. None appeared for the respondent. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the 2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Nandyal District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: l'^ The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Nandikotkur on 14.02.2024, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her father-in-law’s house at Ramachandra Nagar, Anantapur and depending upon the mercy of her father-in-law. The petitioner pleaded that she has filed a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.No.36 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge-Cum-Judge, Family Court, Anantapuramu and the respondent/husband is attending the case proceedings in the 2 aforesaid case at Anantapur. The learned would contend that as a counterblast and also to to the petitioner, the respondent/husband H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2024 Nandikotkur, Nandyal District, under Section Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of counsel for the petitioner cause inconvenience had subsequently filed on the file of the Senior Civil Judge 9 of the Hindu Marriage conjugal rights. The petitioner further contended that her father-in-law is aged about 65 years and is suffering from old age ailments, so that she is not in a position to travel from Anantapur to Nandyala on each and every date of adjournment. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman, depending upon the mercy of her father-in-law, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 160Kms from Anantapur to Nandyala District for attending the case proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Nandyal 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.32 of 2024, on Nandyal District and the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, District. Anantapur 4. Heard Sri P.Sravan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for Though registered notice sent to the the petitioner, respondent was served on him. none 3 appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. 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 father-in-law’s house at Ramachandra Nagar, Anantapur and she had filed a 5. Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.No.36 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge-Cum-Judge, Family Court, Anantapuramu and the respondent/husband is attending the case proceedings in the aforesaid case at Anantapur. The respondent/husband has filed FI.M.O.P.No.32 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Nandyal 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: 6. “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. ” i ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 V 7. On considering the submissions petitioner and in view of the ratio laid matrimonial proceedings, the than that of the i considered view that there petitioner/wife to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.32 Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Nandyal District Court, Anantapur, Anantapur District. made by the learned counsel for the down in the aforesaid case law that in considered this Court is of the request of the of 2024, on the file of the Senior and transfer the same to the Family convenience of the wife has to be inconvenience of the husband. Therefore are grounds to consider the 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur Nandyal District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Anantapur, Anantapur District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Nandyal District, shall transmit the case record i Anantapur District, duly indexed a period of two (02) weeks from the date There shall be no order as to costs. in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2024 to the Family Court, Anantapur, as expeditiously as possible preferably within of receipt of a copy of the order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. if any pending and the Interim Sd/- N NAGAiyiMA ASSISTATNT REGI RAR //TRUE COPY// To SECTION OFFICER 2 II! 2. The Family Court, Anantapur, Anantapur District 3. One CC to Sri P Sravan 4. Two CD Copies Kumar Reddy, Advocate [CPUC] TK sree *r HfGH COURT DATED;24/06/2025 \- \ ORDER TRCMP No.152of2025 X ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION