IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RA0^‘^*4=S TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 370 OF 2024 Between: Ganta Lakshmi, W/o; Ganta Appannadora, aged; 32, R/o: D.No.7- 417,Tarakarama colony, A. Annavaram village, Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District, East Godavari District ...Petitioner AND Ganta Appannadora @ Nanajee, S/o- Kondalarao, aged: 43, R/o- Madhavanagaram village. Nearby Thandava and Nathavaram Mandal, Anakapalli 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 withdraw H.M.O.P No. 78 of 2024 from the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. 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 stay all further proceedings in H.M.O.P No. 78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam pending disposal of the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. V. - Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P Vivek Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T D Pani Kumar The Court made the following: > / THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.370 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.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Peddapuram. 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 Annavaram in the year 2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with two children aged about 14 and 11 years respectively. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children is staying at her parents’ house at Annavaram. The petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narsipatnam, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. 2 II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having two children aged about 14 and 11 years respectively, depending upon her parents, who are senior citizens and further the father of the petitioner is a coconut vendor earning meager income, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance more than 100 Kms from Annavaram to Narsipatnam 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.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Peddapuram. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent represented that the present case is not a fit case for transferring from the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narsipatnam to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Peddapuram and that there are no grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner, as the distance between Narsipatnam and Annavaram is nearly 50 to 60 Kms and requested to dismiss the transfer petition. 3. 4. Heard Sri Mutyala Sobhandri Naidu, learned counsel representing Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Sree Ram, learned counsel representing Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the material available on record During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondenthad plaeecL-Feliance on the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delmo 5. 3 Lubna Coelho Vs. Edmond Clint Femandes\ wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “...18. Number of Transfer Petitions are filed in matrimonial cases, primarily by the wives seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband. This Court normally has been accepting the prayer made while showing leniency towards ladies. In Anindita Das V. Srijit Das (2006) 9 see 197: (AIROnline 2005 SC 37), this Court observed that may be this leniency ivas being misused by women. Hence, each and every case has to be considered on its own merits." 6. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioner and the respondent are blessed with two children, who are aged about 14 and 11 years respectively and are school going children, due to matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children is staying at her parents’ house and the parents of the petitioner are senior citizens. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the aforesaid case law are different to the facts of the case on hand. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the 7. matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her school going children, who are aged about 14 and 11 years respectively are staying at her parents’ house at Annavaram. The petitioner contend that it is very difficult for her along with her two children to attend the case proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narsipatnam on each and every date of adjournment . The petitioner further contended that the distance in between Annavaram and Narsipatnam ‘ AIR 2023 Supreme Court 2106 4 is approximately more than 100 Kms and that the petitioner/ wife is constrained to file the present Transfer Petition. 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.” The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows: 8. 9. “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. ” 10. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 ' (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 / 5 petitioner/wife to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Peddapuram. 11. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Peddapuram. The Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Peddapuram 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 Court, Peddapuram, on 09.03.2023 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/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 3. One CC to Sri. P Vivek, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. T D Pani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Ganta Lakshmi, W/o Ganta Appannadora, aged: 32, R/o; D.No.7-417, Tarakarama colony, A. Annavaram village, Sankhavaram Mandal, Kakinada District, East Godavari District. To, / { 6. Ganta Appannadora @ Nanajee, S/o Kondalarao, aged- 43, R/o- Madhavanagaram village. Nearby Thandava Anakapalli District. 7. Three CD Copies and Nathavaram Mandal 1 SAM sree * HIGH COURT DATED;29/01/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.370 of 2024 13 FEB 2025 . Current Section X o to y/ ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P. WITHOUT COSTS