IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 348 OF 2024 Between: Kurmala @ Gunturu Rukmini Naga Venkata Prasanna Sai Rupa Sree, W/o. Kurmala Dhanush, aged 19 years R/o Addanki Town and Mandal, Bapatia District, Erstwhile Prakasam District. ...Petitioner AND Kurmala Dhanush, S/o. Srinivasarao, aged 20 years, R/o Epurupalem Village, Chirala Mandal, Bapatia District, Erstwhile Prakasam District. ...Respondent Petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to order withdrawal of H.M.O.P. No.122 of 2024 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala and transfer the same for trial and disposal to the court of Learned Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, Bapatia District. % lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: Kurmala Dhanush, S/o. Srinivasarao, aged 20 years, R/o Epurupalem Village, Mandal, Bapatia District, Erstwhile Prakasam District. s ...Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner AND Kurmala @ Gunturu Rukmini Naga Venkata Prasanna Sai Rupa Sree, W/o. Kurmala Dhanush, aged 19 years R/o Addanki Town and Mandal, Bapatia District, Erstwhile Prakasam District. ...Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 25-10-2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in TR.C.M.P. No. 348 of 2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 122 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, pending disposal of the Transfer C.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.348 of 2024 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.122 of 2024, the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Chirala and transfer the same to the on Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Bapatia District. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; 2. I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Singarayakonda on 04.05.2023 as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at Addanki Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Addanki Police Station, Bapatia District under Section 498-A IPC vide Cr.No.334 of 2023 and the same numbered as C.C.No.51 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, is pending for adjudication and respondenyhusband is attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid The petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.122 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Chirala, under Section 139 of the Code of the Addanki, the same case. 2 Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking for dissolution of marriage on the ground of nullity. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman, depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of nearly 55Kms from Addanki Town and Mandal, Prakasam District to Chirala 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.122 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Chirala and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Bapatia District. 3. The respondent/husband has filed a counter affidavit and the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is no justification in considering the request made by the petitioner/wife and there are no grounds to transfer the case in H.M.O.P.No.122 of 2024 from the Senior Civil Judge Court, Chirala to Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Bapatia District. He further contended that the mother of the petitioner herein is practicing as an advocate at Chirala Bar Association and to that effect a copy of the enrollment of the mother of the petitioner at Chirala Bar Association is also filed before the Registry and the same is place on record, further, the petitioner is staying along with her mother at Chirala. As seen from the copy of the enrollment filed by the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner is staying at Addanki, but not at Chirala. ^ 3 Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner 4. and Sri S.S.Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5. Law is well settled that in matrimonial proceedings while transferring a criminal case, this Court is not supposed to enter into the merits or demerits of a case which is pending before the Court below for adjudication. The contention taken by the respondent/husband is that he is apprehending a life threat at Bapatia District from the petitioner/wife and her family members and as such he requested that the present case cannot be transferred to Bapatia District from Chirala. In such a situation, if there would be any danger or threat to the life of the respondent/husband from the petitioner/wife, while attending the Court at Bapatia District, the respondent/husband is at liberty to complain the same before the Court below in which the case proceedings are pending and later on the same would be decided on merits. Law is well settled that, in matrimonial cases between the husband and the wife, the convenience of the wife must prevail particularly when the wife is staying at her parents’ house. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that instead of 6. transferring the case in H.M.O.P.No.122 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge Addanki, Bapatia District, he requested this Court to transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court Paruchur. But, it is not the case of either of the parties that, none of the parties are residing at Paruchur._ , L- 4 7. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA \ 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. 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Alshwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows: “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 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 withdraw H.M.O.P.No.122 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Chirala and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Bapatia District. (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 10. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.122 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Chirala, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Bapatia Revenue District. The Senior Civil Judge Court, Chirala, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.122 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Bapatia Revenue 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. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Bapatia Revenue District on 08.02.2025 at 10.30 a.m. 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/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. 2. The Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. 3. The Learned Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, Bapatia District. 4. One CC to Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. SS Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Kurmala Dhanush, S/o. Srinivasarao, aged 20 years, R/o Epurupalem Village, Chirala Mandal, Bapatia District, Erstwhile Prakasam District. 7. Kurmala @ Gunturu Rukmini Naga Venkata Prasanna Sai Rupa Sree, W/o. Kurmala Dhanush, aged 19 years R/o Addanki Town and Mandal, Bapatia District, Erstwhile Prakasam District. 8. Three CD Copies To, Chp sree *5^ HIGH COURT DATED:20/02/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.348 of 2024 ^ 0 ii mak ms Current Section ^^£^111, II ALLOWING THE TR.CMP. WITHOUT COSTS