APHC010495392024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 382/2024 Between: Bandlapalli Vennela @ Vimala ...PETITIONER AND Thimmireddi Vinod Kumar Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AYESHA AZMA S 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 the H.M.O.P.No.73 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, and transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Ananthapur District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 28.01.2023, at S.K. Function Hall, Galivvedu Town, Annamayya District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents' house at Nangivaandlapalli Village, Talupula Mandal, at Ananthapur District. II. The petitioner pleaded that she filed a Maintenance Case against the respondent/husband vide M.C.No.23 of 2024 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, at Ananthapur District, seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.73 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, under Section 13(ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending . III. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended 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 70 Kms from Kadiri to Rayachoty without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.73 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, and transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Ananthapur District. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Though the notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him. None appeared for the respondent. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record primafacie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Nangivaandlapalli Village, Talupula Mandal, at Ananthapur District and she has instituted a maintenance case against the respondent/husband before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, at Ananthapur District and the same is pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before the said Court on each and every adjournment. It is also a fact that the respondent/husband has also filed H.M.O.P.No.73 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, under Section 13(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Nangivaandlapalli Village, the distance between the Nangivaandlapalli Village and Rayachoty is more than 70 kms, since the petitioner being a woman depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel from Nangivaandlapalli Village to Rayachoty without any male support, and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition. 7. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1 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 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.” 8. 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, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.73 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, and 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Ananthapur District. 9. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.73 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Ananthapur District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.73 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Ananthapur 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: 02.01.2025 CVD