APHC010251392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 163 OF 2025 Between: Pyapili Aswini, W/o.Rayuni Venkata Srinivasulu. aged 25 years, R/o.D.No.1-5-154, Allagadda Town and Mandal, Nandyal District. (Erstwhile Kurnool District) ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Rayuni Venkata Srinivasulu S/o.R.Narayana, aged 28 R/o.D.No.2-75, P.Venkatapuram Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. years ...Respondent/Petitioner Petition filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw and transfer the H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District.(erstwhile Kurnool District) praying that in the a- lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the Transfer Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Aswartha Narayana Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli The Court made the following: vV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.163 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.141 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District and transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at YSR Kadapa District on 14.05.2023, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Allagadda Town and Mandal, Nandyal District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Allagadda Town Police Station under Sections 85, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. vide Cr.No.180 of 2024 against the respondent/husband and the same is pending for investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, cause 2 Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, under Section 13(1)(ia) 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, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa 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.141 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District and transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal 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 Principal Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District and requested to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. He further contended that the respondent/husband is currently residing at Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and if the case in H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2025 is transferred from Proddutur to Allagadda, the respondent/husband has to invariably travel on each and every date of adjournment. He further represented that, if this Court is inclined to transfer the case from Proddatur to Allagadda, the personal attendance of the . xespondent/husband may be dispensed with before the transferee Court. 3 4. Heard Sri N.Ashwath Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepali, learned counsel for the respondent. 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 Allagadda Town and Mandal, Nandyal District and depending upon the mercy of her parents and she had filed a Criminal Case 5. vide Cr.No.180 of 2024 against the respondent/husband and the same is pending for inverstigation. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, under Section 13(1 )(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. 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: 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 ^ (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022. L!A/eLaw (SC) 627 4 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. ” On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel 8. 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.141 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District and transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District. Further on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the respondent/husband is staying at Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, 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 Principal Senior Civil Judge Court Allagadda, Nandyal District. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.C.P.No.141 of 9. 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda, Nandyal District. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, 5 Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda Nandyal District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferablywithin 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 learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda, Nandyal District on 22.09.2025, at 10.30 a.m., later the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda, Nandyal District, is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.141 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 Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Allagadda, Nandyal District. 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 NAGyUVIMA ASSISTANT R^i^RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur District. 2. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allagadda, Nandyal District. 3. Pyapili Aswini, W/o.Rayuni Venkata Srinivasulu Allagadda Town and Mandal, Nandyal District. (Erstwhile Kurnool District) YSR Kadapa R/o.D.No.1-5-154, 4. Rayuni Venkata Srinivasulu, S/o.R.Narayana, R/o.D.No.2-75, P.Venkatapuram Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. 5. One CC to Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO. 163 OF 2025 ^ 0 2 SEP 2025 Ns CO* ALLOWING THE TR.CMP WITHOUT COSTS