APHC010434022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 274/2025 Between: Dhara @ Matangi Sujitha ...PETITIONER AND Dhara Raja Sekhar ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.274 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri V.V.Ragavaiah, learned counsel representing Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo dated 13.10.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website is filed before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the track consignment sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him on 04.09.2025. Therefore, service held sufficient. None appeared for the respondent. 2. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw I.D.O.P.No.191 of 2024, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and transfer the same to the XI Additional District Court, Tenali, Guntur District. 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 on 21.12.2018, as per Christian rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her daughter aged about 6 years are staying at her parents’ house at Sultanabad, Tenali, Guntur District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before Nagarapalem Police Station under Sections 498-A and 354 IPC vide Cr.No.200 of 2023 and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.11 of 2024, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.466 of 2024, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur District and the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings before the competent Courts at Tenali. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed I.D.O.P.No.191 of 2024, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having a daughter aged about 6 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to attend the Court proceedings before the learned X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw I.D.O.P.No.191 of 2024, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and transfer the same to the XI Additional District Court, Tenali, Guntur District. 4. Heard Sri V.V.Ragavaiah, learned counsel representing Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. 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 daughter aged about 6 years are staying at her parents’ house at Sultanabad, Tenali, Guntur District and she had filed a Criminal Case vide Cr.No.200 of 2023, under Sections 498-A and 354 IPC against the respondent/husband and the same is pending for investigation. Further, the petitioner had also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.11 of 2024, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.466 of 2024, on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur District. The respondent/husband has filed I.D.O.P.No.191 of 2024, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage. 6. 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 1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 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.” 7. 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.” 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 I.D.O.P.No.191 of 2024, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and transfer the same to the XI Additional District Court, Tenali, Guntur District. 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and I.D.O.P.No.191 of 2024, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, is 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 hereby withdrawn and transferred to the XI Additional District Court, Tenali, Guntur District. The X Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in I.D.O.P.No.191 of 2024 to the XI Additional District Court, Tenali, Guntur District, 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. 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: 23.10.2025 SRT