APHC010551162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 412/2024 Between: Murapala Roja ...PETITIONER AND Kammindi Gopi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO 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 transfer of H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, to the Senior Civil Judge, Court at Sompeta, Srikakulam District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 12.08.2022, at Golla Puttuga Village, Jadupudi Panchayat, Kanchili Mandalam, Srikakulam District, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes in between both the spouses; she has been residing separately at her parents’ house at Golla Puttuga Village, Srikakulam District. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she has been residing along with her parents at Golla Puttuga Village, the distance between Golla Puttuga Village and Vizianagaram, is more than 300 Kms, she being a women and depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel from Golla Puttuga Village to Vizianagaram, to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she is seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, to the Senior Civil Judge, Court at Sompeta, Srikakulam District. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. As per the Registry endorsement, notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him. But, none appeared for the respondent. 5. Perused the better affidavit filed by the petitioner. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon her parents at Golla Puttuga Village, Jadupudi Panchayat, Kanchili Mandalam, Srikakulam District. It is also a fact that the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner/wife is staying separately at her parents’ house at Golla Puttuga Village, the distance between Golla Puttuga Village and Vizianagaram is more than 300 Kms, since the petitioner being a woman and depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel from Golla Puttuga Village to Vizianagaram, to attend the divorce case proceedings which is filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Vizianagaram, on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present transfer petition. 7. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA1, 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.” 1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.SaravanaKarthikSha2 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.” 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 laws 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 of the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sompeta, Srikakulam District. 10. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sompeta, Srikakulam District. The learned 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.141 of 2024, to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sompeta, Srikakulam 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: 12.02.2025 CVD