APHC010399802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 256/2025 Between: Eadara Vyshnavi @ Ulava Vyshnavi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Ulava Venkata Praveen Chowdary ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VADAPALLI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.256 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Vadapalli Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners has represented that the proof of service memo dated 16.09.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website has been filed before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the track consignment sheet, the registered notice sent to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent before the Court below was served on him on 09.09.2025. Therefore, service held sufficient. None appeared for the respondent. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed on 07.01.2021, as per Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner No.1 and the respondent were blessed with a male child aged about 4 years, who is the petitioner No.2 herein. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner No.1/wife along with her son/petitioner No.2, aged about 4 years are staying at her parents’ house at Ongole Town, Prakasam District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner No.1/wife pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.13 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court, Ongole and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Court at Ongole. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioners, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. II. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioner No.1 being a woman having a son aged about 4 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for the petitioner No.1/wife to travel at a distance of approximately more than 120Kms for attending the Court proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore 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.57 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. Heard Sri Vadapalli Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Though the registered notice was served on the respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner No.1/wife along with her son/petitioner No.2, aged about 4 years are staying at her parents’ house at Ongole Town, Prakasam District and she had filed Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.13 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court, Ongole against the respondent/husband. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. 6. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1 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 paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 7. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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 No.1/wife to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. The Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.57 of 2024 to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam 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. 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: 17.09.2025 SRT 09 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.256 of 2025 Dt. 17.09.2025 SRT