APHC010110012025 ■I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADI AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 90 OF 2025 Between: Chepuri Tulasi @ Pragada Tulasi, W/o.Chepuri Hanumantha Rao, aged 33 years, Occ:House wife, R/o.D.No.11-812, Sramika Nagar, Ratnala Cheruvu, Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND Chepuri Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, aged 40 years, R/o.3rd Line, Gandhinagar, Chimakurthi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondent Petition filed under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to allow the TRCMP by withdrawing H.M.O.P No.29 of 2024 from Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and to transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances ed in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be I to stay all the further proceedings in H.M.O.P No.29 of 2024 on the file Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. s' ’ ’/i' Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Souri Babu Duppati Counsel for the Respondent: 0 The Court made the following: # Vl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.90 of 2025 ORDER: Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri D.Souri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo dated 09.04.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet 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 27.03.2025. Therefore, service held sufficient. None appeared for the respondent. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and transfer the same to the Senior Civil 2. Judge, Mangalagiri. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows; 3. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Mangalagiri on 22.08.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children aged about 13 years and 11 years are staying at her parents’ house at Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the I. respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on fhe file of fhe Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having children aged about 13 years and 11 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 150 Kms from Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District to Ongole for attending the case proceedings before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, on each and every date of adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and transfer the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. same to the 4. Heard Sri D.Souri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him Therefore, service held sufficient. Perused the material available none appeared for the respondent. 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 children aged about 13 years and 11 years are staying at her parents’ house at Mangalagiri Mandal, H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024 Guntur District. The respondent/husband has filed on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage. 3 The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA\ 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 Sha^ held as follows; I, 6. “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 which must be looked at while considering transfer. convenience considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the the aforesaid case laws that in 8. On petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down 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 H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. ' (2000y 10 see 304 ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 / / 4 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024 , on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, 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. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRY //TRUE COPY// SEerroN officer To, 1. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. Chepuri Tulasi @ Pragada Tulasi, W/o.Chepuri Hanumantha Rao, R/o.D.No.11-812, Sramika Nagar, Ratnala Cheruvu, Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 4. Chepuri Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao Gandhinagar, Chimakurthi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. R/o.3rd Line, 5. One CC to Sri Souri Babu Duppati, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies BSV Cnr / / BSV HIGH COURT DATED: 19/06/2025 ORDER TRCMP NO.90 of 2025 ./<o Cs ★ ALLOWING THE TR.CMP WITHOUT COSTS