APHC010060662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 47/2025 Between: Konda Lakshmi Rajamma @ Bukke Lakshmi Rajamma, ...PETITIONER AND Konda Veera Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, for trial. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and theirmarriage was performed on 10.11.2021, at Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs.In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wifehas been residing separately at Sankarapuram, Kadapa Town. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage with all false and baseless allegations against the petitioner/wife and the same is pending for adjudication. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a womanandshe has been residing separately at Kadapa town, it is very difficult for her to travelto attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband which is at a distance of more than 300Kms from Sankarapuram Kadapa Town to Vijayawada, without any male support andthat she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 3. Heard Ms. Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on the him in the month of March, 2025. But there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 5. Perused the material available on record. 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 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 SHA2held 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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 to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 9. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and theF.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (2) 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: 03.04.2025 CVD