THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.336 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 to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2025, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District to the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, for trial and disposal. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 08.10.2009 at Sri Venkateswaraswamy Temple, Rajagopalapuram Village, Payakaraopeta, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents? house at Narsipatnam along with her two male child. The petitioner further pleaded that in view of harassment caused to her by the husband, she 2 filed M.C.No.10 of 2025, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Narsipatnam, under Section 144 of BNSS of 2023, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication. ii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2025, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib), (iii)(a)(b) 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Narsipatnam and Tadepalligudem is approximately 200 kms, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition. 4. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 3 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the material allegations mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner, and the respondent herein contended he is carrying out scrap business at Tadepalligudem, if the case is transferred from Tadepalligudem to Narasipatnam, the respondent herein will face more difficulties, and prayed to dismiss the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, and further contended that there are no grounds to allow the petition. 7. The relationship in between both the parties is not disputed by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that they are living separately. 8. Both the parties are claiming that they are in the custody of the children. It was admitted by both sides counsels on record that children of both the parties are studying in Sri Prakash Vidyaniketan, Payakaraopeta, Anakapalli District, and they are residing in the hostel at Payakaraopeta. 9. The material on record prima facie shows that, the petitioner/wife filed M.C.No.10 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Narsipatnam against the respondent and the same is pending for adjudication. Furthermore, it is the specific contention of the petitioner herein is that she is living at her parents? house from January 2024 onwards at Narsipatnam Mandal. The petitioner 4 further pleaded that the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2025, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib), (iii)(a)(b) 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Narsipatnam and Tadepalligudem is approximately 200 kms, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, on each and every adjournment. 10. 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.= 11. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha2 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 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.” 12. 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 rather than the inconvenience of the husband and therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2025, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District to the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/husband herein is carrying out business at Tadepalligudem, therefore, it is desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2025, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, before the transferee Court, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law. 13. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2025, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, 6 Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2025, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam, 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. The transferee Court i.e., learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam, Anakapalli District, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.59 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 Senior Civil Judge, Narasipatnam. 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: 19.11.2025 MH 7 122 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.336 of 2025 Date: 19.11.2025 MH