APHC010328902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 202/2025 Between: 1. TIPPANABOYINA PADMAVATHI, W/O TIPPANABOYINA SIVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT F1, SUBRAMANYAM APARTMENTS, LAKSHMINARAYANA NAGAR, NEAR SCATTING PARK, BESIDE DADI VEERABHADRA RAO PARTY OFFICE, ANAKAPAJLI TOWN AND DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 531001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. TIPPANABOYINA SIVA KUMAR, S/o Rama Rao, aged about 66 years, R/o 10-7-29, Park Street, Sattenapalii Town, Palnadu District (erstwhile Guntur District), Andhra Pradesh. 522403. ...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 tomay be pleased to withdraw the H.M.O.P No. 81 of 2024 from the file of the Honble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli and transfer the same to the Honble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalli and to pass such 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 may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in HMOP No. 81 of 2024 on the file of the Hon‟ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli against the Petitioner Including the personal appearance in the proceedings in HMOP No. 81 of 2024 on the file of the Hon‟ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli, pending disposal of the above Transfer Miscellaneous Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ROSEDAR S.R.A Counsel for the Respondent: 1. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.202 of 2025 ORDER: Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, proof of service Memo has been field before the Registry on 25.09.2025 vide U.S.R.No.110496 of 2025, along with the Postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website and the same has been placed on record. As per the Postal Track Consignment Sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him on 16.09.2025. 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.81 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, 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 04.03.1990, in the presence of both side elders and well-wishers at Sri Venugopalal Swamy Vari Temple, Sattenapalli Town, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent were begot a child. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Anakapalli Town. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband herein filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage, the same is pending for adjudication. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately in Anakapalli Town and the distance between Anakapalli & Sattenapalli is more than 400Kms, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Court at Sattenapalli without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, for trial and disposal of the same. 4. Heard Mr. Rosedar S.R.A, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Though notice has been served, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, „service is held sufficient‟. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Anakapalli Town. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband herein filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is 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.” 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 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 of 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.81 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. 11. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 Judge, Anakapalli. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2024, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, 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: 04.11.2025 CVD