THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.350 of 2025 ORDER: As seen from the material available on record, notice was served on the respondent and to that effect proof of service was filed in the Registry on 26.11.2025. As per the endorsement of the Registry none filed vakalath for the respondent. When the matter has been taken up for hearing on yesterday, none represented for the respondent. Today also there is no representation for the respondent, though the matter has been listed under the caption „for orders‟. 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.96 of 2025, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalli and transfer the same to the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari 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 25.08.2021 in K.Jagga Appalaswamy 2 Naidu Kalyanamandapam, Gandhinagar, Anakapalle, as per Hindu Rights and Customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Rajamahendravaram. The petitioner lodged a complaint on 14.06.2025 under Section 85 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is registered as FIR.No.122 of 2025 on the file of Korukonda Police Station, East Godavari District and the same is numbered as C.C.No.1764 of 2025, on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. ii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025, Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalli, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Anakapalle and Rajamahendravarm is approximately 200 kms, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear 3 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalli, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition. 4. Heard Sri P.Rajesh Babu, 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 Rajamahendravam 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.96 of 2025, Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalli, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(I) (ia) of the 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 4 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 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 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 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.96 of 2025, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalli, to the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Rajamahendravaram. 10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalli, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajamahendravaram. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anakapalli, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025, to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajamahendravaram, 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 04 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.350 of 2025 Date: 30.12.2025 MH