APHC010606352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 371/2025 Between: 1.JUTHIGA MADHAVI, W/O J.SURESH D/O B. KRISHNA, AGED 37 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE R/O RAYALAM VILLAGE, BHIMAVARAM-2, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.JUTHIGA SURESH, S/o Bogeshwara Rao Aged 37 years, R/o H. No. 3-277, Poulu Peta H/o Bhaskara Rao Peta, Kaidindi (m) Eluru 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 topleased to withdraw and transfer the HMOP No. 78 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, At Kaikaluru, Krishna District to Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, At Bhimavaram West Godavari, for further adjudication, IA 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in HMOP No.78 of 2024, including appearance of the petitioner, on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, At Bhimavaram, pending disposal of the Tr CM P Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.371 of 2025 ORDER: Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, notice sent to the respondent was received and he also filed proof of service Memo was before the Registry on 16.12.2025 vide U.S.R.No.147991 of 2025, along with the Postal Track Consignment signed by the respondent and the same has been placed on record. As per the Registry endorsement, notice sent to the respondent was served. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service 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 for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, for trial and disposal of the same. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 12.02.2011, in the presence of both side elders and well-wishers, at Poulu Peta H/o Bhaskara Rao Peta, Kalidindi Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner/wife and respondent/husband were blessed with two (2) children. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner/wife along with her children aged about 14 & 7 years respectively are residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband, dated 21.02.2025, which was registered as F.I.R.No.51 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the II Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, the same is pending for investigation. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, Krishna District, under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately along with her children and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Kaikaluru without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, for trial and disposal of the same. 4. Heard Mr. K.L.N. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Though notice has been served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service is held sufficient’. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. The material on record prima facie goes to shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her children in her parents’ house at Bhimavaram and she has instituted a Criminal Case under Section 85 of 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 B.N.S. Act, 2023, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the II Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, the same is pending for investigation. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband herein also filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, Krishna District, under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 8. 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.” 9. 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.” 10. 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 than that of the inconvenience caused to the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 11. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kaikaluru, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2024, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Bhimavaram, West Godavari 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: 30.12.2025 CVD