THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.337 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 28.11.2025 vide U.S.R.No.139203 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 03.11.2025. 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 to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2025, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, and transfer the same to the learned Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam 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 23.10.2021 at T.V.R. Function Hall, Kondakenguva Road, Ramabhadrapuram, as per Hindu Rights and 2 Customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Visakhapatnam along with her child. The petitioner got filed F.C.O.P.No.196 of 2025, on the file of Family Court at Visakhapatnam, seeking maintenance and she also got filed F.C.O.P.No.87 of 2025, on the file of learned Additional Family Judge at Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same are pending for adjudication. ii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2024, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Rajam and Visakhapatnam is approximately 150 kms, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition. 3 4. Heard Sri Bodduluri Madhu, 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 parents‟ house at Visakhapatnam 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.M.O.P.No.36 of 2024, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the same is pending for 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 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 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 H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2024, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, to the file of Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2024, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, shall transmit the case record 5 in H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2024, to the file of the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, 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 MH 6 7 07 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.337 of 2025 Date: 30.12.2025 MH