APHC010405062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 250/2025 Between: Smt. Karanki Lakshmi Prasanna @ Prasanna ...PETITIONER AND Vaka Ravi Kumar ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District to the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur 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 Tenali, Guntur District on 21.11.2021, as per Hindu rights and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her daughter aged about 3 years are staying at her parents’ house at Nandiraju Thota Village, Bapatla Mandal, Bapatla District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherukupalli, under Sections 85 and 119(1) of BNS vide FIR.No.21 of 2025 against the respondent/husband and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed O.P.No.71 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Court at Bapatla. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna 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 having a daughter aged about 3 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to attend the Court proceedings before the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District, without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to transfer H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District to the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District. 3. Respondent/husband has filed a counter affidavit by denying the allegations leveled against him by the petitioner/wife in the transfer petition. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband would contend that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of the case in H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025 from the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District to the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District and requested to dismiss the transfer civil miscellaneous petition. 4. Heard Sri K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha, learned counsel for 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/wife is staying along with her daughter aged about 3 years at her parents’ house at Nandiraju Thota Village, Bapatla Mandal, Bapatla District and she had filed a Criminal Case under Sections 85 and 119(1) of BNS vide FIR.No.21 of 2025 against the respondent/husband and the same is pending for investigation. Further, the petitioner also filed O.P.No.71 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. 6. 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.” 7. 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 1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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.” 8. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner/wife had filed O.P.No.71 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. The law is well settled that “when a case seeking for restitution of conjugal rights and a case seeking for dissolution of marriage are filed by the parties, in order to avoid the conflicting of Judgments, both the cases have to be tried by one Judge”. Further, in the case on hand, learned counsel appearing for both sides have represented that a time limit may be fixed to the transferee Court i.e. the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Bapatla, Guntur District to dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law. 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 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 transfer H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District to the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District. 10. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District. The Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2025 to the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District on 16.10.2025 at 10.30 a.m. Further, on considering the representation made by learned counsel appearing for both sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District, is hereby directed to dispose of the case in H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2024, which is now under transfer, within a period of Six (06) months from the date of appearance of the parties before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur 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. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 18.09.2025 SRT