APHC010045142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 62/2025 Between: S. Sangeetha ...PETITIONER AND S Balaji S Balaji Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENU MADHAV CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G.KRISHNAPRASAD ROYAL The Court made the following: ORDER: 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.26 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and transfer the same to the Family Court, Tirupati. 2. 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 on 12.09.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with a male child. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her son are staying at her parents’ house at Tirupati Town & Urban Mandal, Tirupati District. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent/husband is also residing at Tirupati Town and to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.26 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, 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 having a son, depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 70Kms from Tirupati to Chittoor without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking withdraw H.M.O.P.No.26 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and transfer the same to the Family Court, Tirupati. 3. Heard Sri G.Venu Madhav Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sir G.Krishna Prasad Royal, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 4. The respondent had filed a counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition denying the allegations made by the petitioner/wife in her transfer petition. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband would contend that there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed a reliance on the Judgment dated 04.01.1983 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjit Singh Vs. Popat Rambaji Sonvane. I have perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/husband and there is no whisper in the counter affidavit that there was any threat to the respondent at Tirupati. 6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that due to matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her son are staying at her parents’ house at Tirupati Town & Urban Mandal, Tirupati District. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.26 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the respondent further conceded that at present the respondent herein is residing at Tirupati. 7. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA 1, 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 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 appearing for the both sides 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, both parties in the present case are also residing at Tirupati. 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.26 of 2024, on the file of the Principal 1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and transfer the same to the Family Court, Tirupati. 10. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.26 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Tirupati. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.26 of 2024 to the Family Court, Tirupati 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. Both parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Tirupati on 07.05.2025 at 10.30 a.m. 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: 09.04.2025 SRT