APHC010369352026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 25 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 217/2026 Between: 1. EETHAKULA VAMSI SAI MOUNIKA ALIAS KARPURAPU VAMSI SAI MOUNIKA, W/O EETHAKULA NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O D.NO 36 VASANTHARAYAPURAM,GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 1. EETHAKULA NAVEEN, S/O E. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.OCCUPATION PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O. D.NO. 1 PINAPAKA VILLAGE POST,G. KONDURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. 521228 Petition 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 call for the records in H.M.O.P No. 233 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nuzvid, and withdraw the same and transfer it to the Court of the Family Court Guntur, having jurisdiction, for the reasons stated above, and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 217/2026 EETHAKULA VAMSI SAI MOUNIKA ALIAS KARPURAPU VAMSI SAI MOUNIKA, W/O EETHAKULA NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O D.NO 36-17-1132, 1 LINE VASANTHARAYAPURAM,GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND NAVEEN, S/O E. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.OCCUPATION PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O. D.NO. 1 PINAPAKA VILLAGE POST,G. KONDURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in H.M.O.P No. 233 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nuzvid, and withdraw the same and transfer it to the Court of the Family Court-cum-lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, having jurisdiction, for the reasons stated above, and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3606] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR EETHAKULA VAMSI SAI MOUNIKA ALIAS KARPURAPU VAMSI SAI MOUNIKA, W/O EETHAKULA NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 1132, 1 LINE ...PETITIONER NAVEEN, S/O E. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.OCCUPATION PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,R/O. D.NO. 1-77, PINAPAKA VILLAGE POST,G. KONDURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT.- ...RESPONDENT Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in H.M.O.P No. 233 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nuzvid, and withdraw the same and transfer it to lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, having jurisdiction, for the reasons stated above, and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2 stay all further proceedings in H.M.O.P No. 233 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, until pending disposal of the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ALLA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: Nil The Court made the following: 1. 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION No. 217 OF 2026 ORDER: The petitioner, Ms. Eethakula Vamsi Sai Mounika @ Karpurapu Vamsi Sai Mounika, has filed the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.233 of 2025 from the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, and transfer the same to the Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. 2. The petitioner asserts that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 05.10.2017 at Guntur. Out of their wedlock, a daughter by name Jaswika was born on 12.12.2018. In the course of their married life, disputes arose between them and they are living separately. The petitioner is residing at Guntur with her parents and minor child. 3. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.233 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, NTR District, seeking a decree of divorce against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner asserts that the said case was filed only to harass her. Though the respondent has knowledge that the petitioner is residing at Guntur with the minor child, he filed the petition at Nuzvid on false grounds. 4. The petitioner has to travel all the way to the Court at Nuzvid, which is about 80 kilometres from Guntur. She further asserts that she is working in a Practicing Company Secretaries firm at Guntur. She has to attend to her work as well as the needs of her minor daughter. It is difficult for her to travel to Nuzvid. Therefore, she filed the present application seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.233 of 2025 from the Court at Nuzvid and transfer the same to the Court at Guntur. 4 Proceedings before this Court: 5. Notice was ordered to the respondent. Personal notice was sent by the petitioner to the respondent through RPAD. The same was delivered and served upon the respondent. However, none appeared for the respondent. Submissions of the Petitioner: 6. Heard Sri Alla Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent filed an application for dissolution of marriage on false grounds only to harass the petitioner. The petitioner is residing at Guntur with her minor child and parents. It is difficult for her to travel to Nuzvid and, hence, learned counsel sought consideration of the present application. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another1; Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi2; and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha3, and submitted that in the above decisions, the convenience of the wife was considered while dealing with transfer of matrimonial proceedings. Discussion: 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 10. The record shows that the petitioner has filed a copy of H.M.O.P.No.233 of 2025, filed by the respondent, wherein he mentioned his address. The same address is mentioned in the Transfer Petition. The petitioner sent personal notice through her counsel to the said address, which was delivered to the respondent. However, none appeared for the respondent. This would show that service of notice on the respondent is proper. There is no resistance from the respondent to the present petition. 1 (2001) 10 SCC 41 2 (2005) 12 SCC 237 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 119 5 11. In N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the convenience of the wife is a paramount consideration while considering transfer of matrimonial proceedings. 12. In the present case, the petitioner is stated to be working at Guntur and staying there with her minor child. The reasons assigned for the disputes between the parties are not relevant for consideration at this stage, as the subject matter has to be adjudicated by the competent Court. 13. As far as Section 24 of CPC is concerned, the relevant consideration is whether the case can be transferred from one Court to another Court which is competent to adjudicate the matter. The Family Court at Guntur is established and functioning. At Nuzvid, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is the competent Court which has taken H.M.O.P.No.233 of 2025 on file. 14. In the present case, the petitioner is residing at Guntur with child. Her convenience and care of the child is required for consideration. The distance between Guntur and Nuzvid is about 80 kilometres, which may cause hindrance to the petitioner to prosecute the case while taking care of the child. I am of the view that the present petition can be considered. 15. The presence of the parties before the Family Court may be required under the Family Courts Act, 1984. The distance for the respondent to travel to Guntur would also be the same as that of the petitioner travelling to Nuzvid. In view of the advent of technology and availability of virtual mode, the personal appearance of the respondent need not be insisted upon on each and every adjournment, unless his presence is specifically required by the Court. 16. In the case of Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nigam4, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court permitted appearance of parties through video conference, I am of the view that the personal appearance of the respondent can be dispensed with. 4 2017 (4) SCC 150 6 Result: 17. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, with the following directions:- i. H.M.O.P.No.233 of 2025 is hereby withdrawn from the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, and transfer to the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. ii. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuzvid, is directed to transmit the entire record in H.M.O.P.No.233 of 2025, duly indexed, to the Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, within a reasonable time. iii. The Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, upon receipt of the case records, shall renumber the case as per due procedure, and after giving due notice to both parties and proceed in accordance with law. iv. The Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, is further directed not to insist on the personal appearance of the respondent-husband on each and every adjournment, unless his presence is required for reconciliation, mediation, recording of evidence, or whenever specifically directed by the Court, subject to his being represented by learned counsel, and may consider virtual appearance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________________ JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI Dated: 25.09.2026 DSV