THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.419 of 2024 ORDER: Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that they sent a notice to the learned counsel for the respondent before the trial Court, and they also filed proof of service on 25.02.2025, which shows that the notice was served on the learned counsel for the respondent before the trial Court on 07.02.2025, but none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service is held sufficient. 2. 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 withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2023, on the file of the Court of Family Judge, Srikakulam and to transfer the same to the III Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada, 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 28.02.2019, at Kakinada, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter, due to 2 matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her mother?s house at Kakinada along with her male child aged about 4 years old. The petitioner further pleaded that in view of harassment caused to her by the husband, she filed D.V.C.No.88 of 2024, on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and the same is pending for adjudication. ii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2023, on the file of Family Judge, Srikakulam, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Ananthapur and Kadapa is approximately 250 kms, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the Court of the Family Judge, Srikakulam, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition. 3 4. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her mother?s house at Kakinada and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2023, on the file of Family Judge, Srikakulam, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the same is pending adjudication. 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.= 8. 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 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 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 F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2023, on the file of Family Judge, Srikakulam, to the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District. 10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2023, on the file of Family Judge, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District. The learned Family Judge, Srikakulam, shall transmit the 5 case record in F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2023, to the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada 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: 19.11.2025 MH 6 11 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.419 of 2024 Date: 19.11.2025 MH