APHC010278422024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 211/2024 Between: Kampasuguna, ...PETITIONER AND Nalam Ravi Sankhar ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: Today when the matter has been taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proof of service memo was filed before the Registry, the same is placed on record. 2. As per the Registry endorsement, notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. 3. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for shot ‘the C.P.C.’) seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for trial. 4. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 08.03.2020, at Sri Maridamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Peddapuram, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock period, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with a male child and in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child at her parents’ house at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and depending upon her parents along with her child, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which is at a distance of more than 150Kms from Visakhapatnam to Peddapuram 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.17 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Though the notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. 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.” 9. 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 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 10. 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 taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 11. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2024, to the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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: 10.04.2025 CVD