IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE AT AMARAVATI PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO IRANSFER CIVIL MISCFI I ANEOIIS PFTmr.M NO: 390 OF 9n9A 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 the O.P.No.7 of 2024 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu the Court of the II Additional Proddatur. at Gooty and transfer the same to the file of District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Between: B Paddu, W/o. A.Vasu, D.No.7/3853, Sreenivasa District. D/o. B.lssac, aged about 22 Nagar, Proddatur Town, YSR (Kadapa) Years, R/o. ...Petitioner AND A Vasu @ Prabhu Kumar, S/o. A.Sreenivasulu, aged about 29 0. D.No.7/346, S.C.Colony, Gooty Town District Years, and Mandal, Ananthapuram u ( nd also at A.Vasu @ Prabhu Kumar S/o. A.Sreenivasulu, aged about ears, cc Municipal Sanitary (PH) Worker, Proddatur Municipality Proddatur, YSR (Kadapa) District R/o. D.No.25/669, Vasanthapeta Rameswaram, proddatur Town, YSR (Kadapa) District) ..Respondent 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 O.P.No.7 of 2024 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.390 of 2024 ORDER; The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the D.O.P.No.7 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, and transfer the same to the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Proddutur Twon, Y.S.Ft. Kadapa District, for trial. 1. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the t. marriage of the p6Jtitioner with the respondent was performed on 29.11.2021, at C.S.I. Church, Proddutur, as per Christian Rites and Customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents' house at Proddutur Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent/husband filed D.O.P.No.7 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, under Section 10(I)(X) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for divorce and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that the petitioner being a woman and depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel which is at a distance of more than 130Kms, from Proddutur Town to Ananthapuramu without any male support and 2 V(5KR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.390 of 2024 that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to withdraw the D.O.P.No.7 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, and transfer the same to the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Though the notice sent to the respondent and the same was served 4. on him. None appeared for the respondent. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record primafacie goes to show that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents' house at Proddutur Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. It is also a fact that the respondent/husband has filed D.O.P.No.7 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, under Section 10(I)(X) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for divorce. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Proddutur Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, the distance between the Proddutur Town and Ananthapuramu is more than 130 kms, since the petitioner being a woman depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel from Proddutur Town to Ananthapuramu to attend the Court proceedings on 3 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.390of2024 adjournment before the said Court without any male support, and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition, of Geefa Heera Vs Harish Chander each and every The Apex Court in a case 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, 7. 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. 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 to consider the plea of matters, wherever Courts are called upon transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- thelr and eking are seeking economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s which must be looked at while considering transfer." convenience 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 of the wife has to be taken into 9. matrimonial proceedings, the convenience ^ (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 V(5KR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.390of2024 a than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, consideration 1 am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, to withdraw the D.O.P.No.7 of 2024 on file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, and transfer the the to the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and D.O.P.No.7 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the to the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa The learned VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, shall transmit the case record in D.O.P.No.7 of 2024 to the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa 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 same 10. District. costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. 2. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. 3. B Paddu, W/o. A.Vasu, D/o. B.lssac, aged about 22 Years, R/o. D.No.7/3853, Sreenivasa Nagar, Proddatur Town, YSR (Kadapa) District. 4. A Vasu @ Prabhu Kumar, S/o. A.Sreenivasulu, aged about 29 Years, R/o. D.No.7/346, S.C.Colony, Gooty Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District And also at A.Vasu @ Prabhu Kumar S/o. A.Sreenivasulu, aged about 29 Years, Occ: Municipal Sanitary (PH) Worker, Proddatur Municipality, Proddatur, YSR (Kadapa) District R/o. D.No.25/669, Vasanthapeta, Rameswaram, Proddatur Town, YSR (Kadapa) District 5. One CC to Sri. Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies PR sree HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.390 of 2024 X 18 JAN 2025 n ^ . Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P. WITHOUT COSTS