IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE V. TRANS. CIVIL MisC.PETITinM Kin. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 323 OF 2024 Between: Vasam @ Kareddy Tejanjali, W/o. Aged 24 years, Occ: Home maker, Mandal, Anakapalli District. Apparao, D/o. Kareddy Joginaidu, . R/o. Panduru Village, Kotavrutia ...Petitioner AND Vasam Apparao, S/o. Chakrarao, Door No. 3-59, Kakarapalli Village District. Aged 34 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. . Kotananduru Mandal, Kakinada ...Respondent Petition Under Section circumstances stated i 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to transfer the H.M.O.P. may be No.110 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Pilhapuram, East Godavari District and to transfer the same to adjudication. the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narsipatnam for lA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances m support of the petition, the High Court may be 9 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 110 of 2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Pithapuram, East Godavari Judicial District including the appearance of the petitioner pending disposal Tr.C.M.P. of Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ramesh Babu Nelaturi Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONNo.323 of 2024 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner represented that he filed proof of service Memo before the Registry, along with the postal track consignment sheet and the same is placed on record. It reflects that the notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him. But, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. 2. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, for trial. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 27.05.2021, at Kakarapalli Village, Kotananduru Mandal, Kakinada District, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wed-lock period, the petitioner/wife blessed with a child and in view of the matrimonial disputes in between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separatelv along with her of the 3. I. Tr.C.M.P.No.323 of 2024 VGKR, J 2 child aged about 2 years at her mother’s house at Panduru Village, Anakapalli District and her mother was suffering with cardiac problem. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, the distance between Panduru Village and Pithapuram, is more than 100 Kms, she being a women and residing separately along with her child aged about 2 years at her mother’s house, it is very difficult for her to travel from Panduru Village to Pithapuram, to attend the case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she is seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Pithapuram, East Godavari District, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Though the notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him. But, none appeared for the respondent. i\-j I »■ %■ Tr.C.M.P.No.323 of 2024 VGKR, J 3 6. Perused the record. 7. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her child aged about 2 years at her mother’s house at Panduru Village. It is also a fact that the respondent/husband has instituted a case i.e., H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication. The contention of the learnbd counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is staying separately along with her child aged about 2 years at her mother’s house at Panduru Village, the distance between Panduru Village and Pithapuram is more than 100 Kms, since the petitioner being a woman and depending upon her mother along with her child, it is very difficult for her to travel from Panduru Village to Pithapuram, to attend the case proceedings which is filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Pithapuram, on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition. / Tr.C.M.P.No.323 of 2024 V6KR, J S 4 The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Alshwarya Vs A.S.SaravanaKarthikSha^held as follows; 8. “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice 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. ” 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 made by the petitioner/wife, seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024, the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari \District, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District. on \ ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 Tr.C.IVI.P.No.323 of 2024 VGKR, J 5 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Narsipatnam, Anakaplli District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024, to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Narsipatnam, Anakaplli 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. Sd/- N NAGAMMA REGISTRAfr SEeTK^ToFFICER 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District. 2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District 3. One CC to Sri Ramesh Babu Nelaturi Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// To, SAM sree % HIGH COURT DATED:14/02/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.323 of 2024 t 2 5 FEB 2025 ^ . Current Section . ^ m a ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P WITHOUT COSTS