APHC010260612024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 166/2024 Between: Kidambi Neeraja Sruthi @ Koduru Neeraja Sruthi ...PETITIONER AND Kidambi Nanda Kishore ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LAKSHMINARAYANA V Counsel for the Respondent: 1. B SARVOTHAM REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 22.05.2021 at Bullion Merchant Association Hall, Nellore, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock period, the petitioner/wife blessed with a child and due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife is staying separately along with her child aged about 2 years at her parents’ house at Vijayawada, Krishna District. The petitioner/wife pleaded that, she has been pursuing her PhD in Biotechnology, at Vignan’s University. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filedH.M.O.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication. III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she being a woman and residing separately along with her child aged about 2 years at her parents’ house at Vijayawada, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 280Kms from Vijayawada to Nellore to attend the case proceedings without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking transfer ofH.M.O.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that, the respondent/husband herein has been residing at Abroad and working as a private employee. He would further contend that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife herein and the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child aged about 2 years at her parents’ house at Vijayawada. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is residing separately along with her child at her parents’ house at Vijayawada, the distance between Vijayawada and Nellore is more than 280 kms, since the petitioner being a woman depending upon her parents along with her child, it is very difficult for her to travel from Vijayawada to Nellore to attend the case proceedings, which is pending before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed a reliance in a case of SANGEETHA alias SHREYA Vs. PRASANT VIJAY WARGIYA1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “4. We are still living in a civilized society. We see no substance in the submission that there would be danger to his life if the respondent has to attend the court in Kota. If any threat is given, the respondent can always complain to that court and we are sure that his complaint, if one made, will be considered on its merit. Between a husband and a wife the convenience of the wife must prevail particularly when the wife has a 2-1/2 -year-old child. 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha2 held as follows: “9. The cardinal principles 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 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.” 1(2004) 13 SCC 407 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 9. 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 and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. It is also further clear that the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child aged about 2 years at her parents’ house and depending upon her parents at Vijayawada. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 10. As per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that, the respondent/husband herein is residing at Abroad and working as a private employee. Therefore, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, “except on the days when his presence is required as per law”, before the said Court. 11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2024 to the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna 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. The personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, “except on the days when his presence is required as per law”. 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 19.02.2025 CVD