APHC010030432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 23 OF 2025 Between: G Madhavi Latha, W/o. Narendra Kumar, aged about 32 years, R/o. Dasari Colony, Chilakaluripet, Guntur (Palnadu) district. ...Petitioner AND G Narendra Kumar, S/o. Venkateswarlu, age 36 years, R/o. D.No. 27-14 Sriramnagar, Nandigama, Krishna (NTR) 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 transfer the HMOP No. 19/2024 on the file of Senior CiviUudge, Nandigama, Krishna District, to Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. t lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Pd’lition 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 HMOP No. 19/2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama. Krishna District, till the disposal of the Transfer Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: - The Court made the following Order: 2 she had lodged a complaint before the Chilakaluripet Town Police Station, Palnadu District under Section 85 BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.166 of 2024 and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.36 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, and the respondent is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Court at Guntur District. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Nandigama, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and having three children, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than lOOKms from Chilakaluripet, Guntur District to Nandigama, Krishna District for attending the case proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, on each and every date of adjournment 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.19 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.23 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Palanki Karteek, learned counsel representing Sri T.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo dated 01.04.2025, along with the Postal Acknowledgment Card is filed before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the Postal Acknowledgment Card, the registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him. Therefore, service held sufficient. None appeared for the respondent. 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.19 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 2. 3. 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 Chilakaluripet on 06.06.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her three children are staying at her parents’ house at Chilakaluripet, Guntur District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that 3 Heard Sri Sri Palanki Karteek, learned counsel representing Sri T.Rama 4. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. Perused the material available on record. The material on record pr/ma facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her three children are staying at her parents’ house at Chilakaluripet, Guntur District and she had lodged a complaint before the Chilakaluripet Town Police Station, Palnadu District under Section 85 BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.166 of 2024 and the same is pending for investigation and also had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.36 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet , and the respondent is attending the court proceedings before the competent Court at Guntur District. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of 5. marriage. 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.” 6. ’ (2000) 10 see 304 4 7. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ 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 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 petitioner/wife to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. The learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama, Krishna ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 r -A 5 District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, 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. 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/-AVIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The CivilJudge(Senior Division), Nandigama, Krishna District 2. The Civii Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, Guntur District. Ramakoteswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. OneCCto Sri.Thota 4. Two CD Copies Stu vna I f HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 ORDER TRCMP No. 23/2025 ALLOWING THE TR.CMP