APHC010310912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 189/2025 Between: 1. POLURU LAKSHMI PRATYUSHA, D/O. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O 2ND CROSS, PARAMESWARI NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHALLAGALI HEMA KUMAR RAJU, S/o Jayasimha Raju, Aged about 29 years R/o. Gokulam, 0pp. Maka Maseed, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, 530026. ...RESPONDENT 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 toPleased to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Penukonda and to transfer to the Hon'ble Family Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District and pass 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2025 on the file of the Hon‟ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Penukonda and to transfer to the Hon‟ble Family Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District pending disposal of the Transfer C.M.P. and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file counter affidavit in Tr.C.M.P. No.189 of 2025 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Y V S S DHARANEESH The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.189 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, „the C.P.C.‟), seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2025, on the file of the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Penukonda, and to transfer the same to the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore, for trial and disposal. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 14.02.2024 at V.B.S Kalyanamandapam, Nellore, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Nellore. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that she had lodged a complaint dated 10.04.2025 in FIR No.44 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Nellore and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner also filed D.V.C.C.F.No.1170 of 2025 on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First 4 Class, Excise Court, Nellore, and the same is pending for adjudication against the respondent/husband. ii. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2025, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage, and the same is also pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Nellore and Penukonda is approximately 300kms, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent represented that the respondent has filed a counter and the same is placed on record. He contended that the respondent is working as a Software Engineer at Bangalore and there are no merits in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 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, due to the matrimonial disputes between both parties, the petitioner/wife has been 5 residing separately in her parents‟ house at Nellore. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2025, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage, and the same is also pending for adjudication. The material on record further discloses that the petitioner filed D.V.C.C.F.No.1170 of 2025, on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Nellore, and the same is pending for adjudication. The undisputed facts are that D.V.C. and 498-A cases are pending against the respondent/husband before the Magistrate Court at Nellore and it is also undisputed fact that no other cases are pending before the learned Family Judge Court, Nellore. 7. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA1, 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.” 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha2 held as follows: “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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 6 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.” 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 present case that in matrimonial proceedings, this Court is of considered view that the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. It was admitted by both sides counsel on record that no cases are pending in between both the parties before the learned Family Court at Nellore. Therefore, in such a case, if H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2025 has been transferred to the learned Family Court at Nellore, certainly, it will cause some hardship to the Respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the Respondent herein before the learned Family Court at Nellore except on the days his presence is required before the said Court. 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.60 of 2025, to the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore. 7 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2025, on the file of on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2025, to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore, 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. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore, on 13.07.2026 at 10.30 A.M. The transferee Court i.e., learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2025, which is now under the orders has been dispensed with as long as his counsel on record 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 Judge, Family Court, Nellore. 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: 07.05.2026 LSP