APHC010425292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 300/2025 Between: 1. SMT KONDRU KOMAL RAJ, WIFE OF SARAT BABU, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOME MAKER, A RESIDENT OF 10-43, NEAR OLD GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, LOCK CENTRE, INTURU VILLAGE, AMARTHALURU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KONDRU SARAT BABU, son of late Someswara Rao, Christian, aged about 38 years, occupation employee, resident of D.No.4-52, Zamigolvepalli post Gangadharapuram, Gudiwada Mandal, Krishna 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 topleased to transfer the D.O.P.No. 103/2025 on the file of the Court of the XI Additional District Judge Krishna, at Gudiwada, to the Court of the XI Additional District Judge, at Tenali and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings of D.O.P.No. 103/2025 on the file of the Court of the XI Additional District Judge Krishna, at Gudiwada, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHANU SANDHYA RANI.K Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PETA GNANA TEJA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.300 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short „the C.P.C.‟) seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, for trail and disposal of the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 11.10.2018, in the presence of both side elders and well wishers. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Inturu Village, Bapatla District. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint dated 25.01.2025, against the respondent/husband herein, which was registered as F.I.R.No.8 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Amruthaluru Police Station, after completion of investigation, Police filed a charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C.No.84 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali and she also filed two (2) other cases against the respondent/husband i.e., Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.9 of 2025 and Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.20 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, and the aforesaid three (03) cases are pending for adjudication. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed a divorce petition vide D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, under Section 10(i)(ix)&(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Inturu Village, Bapatla District and it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband, before the Court at Gudivada without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.103 of 2025 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, for trail and disposal of the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner/wife filed three (3) cases against the respondent/husband before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali. The fact remains that the respondent/husband has not filed any prima facie proof to show that the petitioner/wife herein is residing in Guntur, but the averments mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in the petition goes to show that she has instituted three (3) cases i.e., C.C.No.84 of 2020, Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.9 of 2025 and Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.20 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, the same are pending for adjudication. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner/wife is now residing at Guntur, but not within the territorial jurisdiction of Tenali. As stated supra, no prima facie proof has been filed by the respondent to show that the petitioner has been residing at Guntur. He further submitted that the respondent/husband herein is a Government employee and working in Municipal Department at Vijayawada, if this Court is inclined to transfer the said case i.e., D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, the personal appearance of the respondent/husband may be dispensed with before the transferee Court. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in Inturu Village, Bapatla District and the petitioner/wife herein had filed (03) cases against the respondent/husband herein i.e., C.C.No.84 of 2020, Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.9 of 2025 and Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.20 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali and the aforesaid cases are pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Tenali, Guntur District. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, under Section 10(i)(ix)&(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 8. 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.” 9. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA2, held as follows: “9. The cardinal principles 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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 appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. In view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Inturu Village, therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/husband herein is an employee and working in Municipal Department at Vijayawada, therefore, it is desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, before the transferee Court, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law. 11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the D.O.P.No.103 of 2025 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, to the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, on 21.11.2025, at 10.30 a.m. Later, the transferee Court i.e., learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District,, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in D.O.P.No.103 of 2025, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when re-conciliation proceedings are being taken up or on the day when his cross-examination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal appearance is required as directed by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. 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: 03.11.2025 CVD