THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.17 of 2026 ORDER: Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Smt. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proof of service Memo was filed before the Registry on 24.02.2026 vide U.S.R.No.23582 of 2026, along with the Postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website and the same is placed on record. As per the Postal Track Consignment Sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was duly served on 30.01.2026. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, „service held sufficient‟. 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 for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.368 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Narasaraopeta, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Kadiri, Anathapur District, or any other competent Court in Kadiri, for trial and disposal of the same. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 03.06.2023, in the presence of both side elders and 2 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.17 of 2026 well-wishers, at Avvaru Kalyana Mandapam, Vinukonda, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Thereafter, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Kadiri. II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband, which was registered as F.I.R.No.243 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Kadiri Police Station, after completion of investigation, Police laid a charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1613 of 2023, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, and she also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.24 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, Ananthapur District, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband, the same are pending for adjudication. 3 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.17 of 2026 III. 3 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.17 of 2026 III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.368 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Kadiri, the distance between Kadiri & Narasaraopeta is more than 300Kms and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Narasaraopeta without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.368 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Anathapur District, or any other competent Court in Kadiri, for trial and disposal of the same. 5. Heard Smt. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Though notice has been served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, „service is held sufficient‟. 4 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.17 of 2026 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. The material on record prima facie goes to shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife herein has been residing separately in her parents‟ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Kadiri. The material available on record reveals that the petitioner/wife herein filed two (2) cases against the respondent/husband viz., C.C.No.1613 of 2023, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, and Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.24 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, Ananthapur District, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the respondent /husband, the aforesaid cases are pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before the competent Courts at Kadiri. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.368 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication. 9. 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 5 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.17 of 2026 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.” 10. 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.” 11. 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 than that of the inconvenience caused to the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.368 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta, 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 6 VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.17 of 2026 and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Anathapur District. 12. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.368 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge Court at Kadiri, Anathapur District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.368 of 2025, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Anathapur District, duly indexed 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: 25.02.2026 CVD/JLSR