APHC010416792024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 313/2024 Between: Bandela @ Kamunuri Parimala ...PETITIONER AND Kamunuri Harish Kumar ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAVAN KUMAR PASUPULETI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 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 withdraw H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and transfer the same to the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 16.02.2022 at Narasaraopet, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wed-lock period, the petitioner and respondent were blessed with a child and in view of the matrimonial disputes in between both the spouses; she has been residing separately along with her daughter at her parents’ house at Ethamukkala Village, Kothanpatnam Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner/wife pleaded that, she lodged a complaint dated 13.12.2023, against the respondent/husband and his parents in Crime No.152 of 2023, under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before Kothapatnam Police Station and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.22 of 2024, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband and she also filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.19 of 2024 under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District and the said three (3) cases are pending for adjudication before the same Court at Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights with false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner/wife and the same is also pending for adjudication. She further pleaded that, the distance between Ethamukkala Village and Narasaraopet is more than 100Kms, she being a women depending upon her parents along with her child, it is very difficult for her to travel from Ethamukkala Village to Narasaraopet to attend the case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and transfer the same to the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. As per the proof of service memo filed by the petitioner before the Registry, notice sent to the counsel on record appearing for the respondent, the same was served on him and the same is placed on record. But none appeared for the respondent and the matter was adjourned to today. 5. Today also, when the matter is listed under the caption ‘for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child at her parents’ house at Ethamukkala Village. She has instituted three (3) cases i.e., case of 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1908, Maintenance Case and Domestic Violence Case against the respondent/husband herein and all the said cases are pending before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District and the respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before the said Court at Ongole. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner/wife and the same is also pending for adjudication. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child at her parents’ house and the distance between Ethamukkala Village and Narasaraopet is more than100Kms, since the petitioner being a woman depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel from Ethamukkala Village to Narasaraopet to attend the case proceedings which is filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition. 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.SaravanaKarthikSha 1 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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 for the petitioner 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 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 of the petitioner/wife to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and transfer the same to the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District. 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.8 of 2023 to the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) 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: 03.04.2025 CVD