APHC010372832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 226 OF 2025 Between: Harika Ponnam, W/o Harish D/o Ponnam Sri Rama Murthy, aged about 40 Yers, R/o D.No.57-15-13 Western Street-3, New Postal Colony, Patamata, Vijayawada ...Petitioner/Respondent AND Chimmiii Harish, S/o Ankaiah, aged about 39 Years, r/o 6/5, Ward No.2 C.Block, Siri Gardens, Pedda Cherukuru, Allipuram, Nellore Rural Nellore District SPSR ...Respondent/Petitioner 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 with draw H.M.O.P.No.31/2025 filed by the Petitioner Under Section 13 (lA) of The Hindu Marriage Act, on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, and transfer to the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Principal Family Judge at Vijayawada. lA 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 to stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.31/2025 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Subba for the Petitioner, and none appeared for Rao Kurrapati, Advocate Respondent. The Court made the following Order; THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.226 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo dated 15.09.2025, along with postal track consignment sheet has been filed before the Registry and the same is placed on record. As per the said track consignment sheet, the notice sent to the respondent was served on him on 06.09.2025 and the notice sent to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein before the Court below has been served on him on 10.09.2025. Therefore, service held sufficient. But, none appeared for the respondent. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of 2. the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and transfer the same to the Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. 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 Benz Circle, Vijayawada on 16.12.2010, as per Hindu rights and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the 2 petitioner/wife along with her children aged about 11 years and 6 years respectively are staying at her parents Patamata, Vijayawada and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Patamata Police Station Commissionerate, under Section 85 of BNS and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide FIR.No.307 of 2025 against the respondent/husband and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.(M.C).No.1167 of 2025 house at, \ NTR on the file of the Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Court at Vijayawada. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.1017 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, under Sections 7, 9, 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking for custody of the children and the is pending for adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. a case in same 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having children aged about 11 years and 6 years respectively, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel at a distance of approximately more than 250 Kms from Vijayawada to Nellore for attending the Court proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, 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.31 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and transfer the same to the Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. 4. Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though registered notice has been served on the respondent and as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein before the Court below, none appeared for the respondent/husband. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children aged about 11 years and 6 years respectively are staying at her parents’ house at Patamata, Vijayawada and depending upon the mercy of her parents and she had filed a Criminal Case vide FIR.No.307 of 2025 against the respondent/husband and the same is pending for investigation. Further, the petitioner had filed a 4 Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.(M.C).No.1167 of 2025 Principal Family Court, on the file of Vijayawada. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA'', held by considering the fact that not have sufficient funds to visit the place where the divorce filed by her husband, then the transfer petition filed by the wife allowed.” the Judge, 6. if a wife does petition is may be 7. I he Apex Court in A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha^ held as follows: a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs 9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice 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 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.” soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the " (2000) 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 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.31 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and transfer the same to the Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. The Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, shall transmit the record in H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2025 to the Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, 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. case As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall |tar|d ^sed. Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. / ri 2. The Principal District Judge, Vijayawada 3. The Principal Family Judge at Vijayawada. 4. One CC to SRI SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies vna \ HIGH COURT \ \ \ DATED:25/09/2025 \ \ ORDER TRCMP NO. 226 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE TRCMP