APHC010087552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 63/2025 Between: Kowluri Sharon Roja Angel ...PETITIONER AND Nandika Dennis ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D LALITHA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri D.Lalith Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo dated 26.03.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet is before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the said postal track consignment sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent by the learned counsel for the petitioner was served on him on 12.03.2025. But, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient 2. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw D.O.P.No.274 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram and transfer the same to the IX Additional District Court, Kovvuru, West Godavari 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 14.11.2018 as per Christian rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her parents’ house at Kovvuru, East Godavari. The petitioner contend that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed D.O.P.No.274 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram, under Section 10(1)(xi)(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, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 50Kms from Kovvuru to Peddapuram without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw D.O.P.No.274 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram and transfer the same to the IX Additional District Court, Kovvuru, West Godavari District. 4. Heard Sri D.Lalith Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice has been served on the respondent, none appeared for the respondent. 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 is staying at her parents’ house at Kovvuru, West Godavari. The respondent/husband has filed D.O.P.No.274 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram, under Section 10(1)(xi)(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 HEERA 1, 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 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 D.O.P.No.274 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram and transfer the same to the IX Additional District Court, Kovvuru, West Godavari District. 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and D.O.P.No.274 of 2024, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the IX Additional District Court, Kovvuru, West Godavari District. The VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram, shall 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 transmit the case record in D.O.P.No.274 of 2024 to the IX Additional District Court, Kovvuru, West Godavari 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: 22.04.2025 SRT