THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.90 of 2026 ORDER: The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 13.02.2021 at Yelamanchili, West Godavari District and in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, they are living separately. The petitioner pleaded that she lodged a complaint under Section 498-A before the Yelamanchili police station, the same was registered as Crime No.111 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Narasapuram, West Godavari District, and the same is pending adjudication. II. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed D.O.P.No.397 of 2025, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narsapuram, seeking divorce, under Section 10 (ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Amendment Act, 2001. 2 III. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and she is working in Government department and currently staying at Tuni and it is very difficult for her for attending the divorce case proceedings before the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram, on each and every date of adjournment and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to transfer D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit by denying the material allegations leveled in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband contended that there are no merits in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner and requested to dismiss the transfer petition. He further represented that the respondent herein is working as a private employee in Amaravati and that it is very difficult for the respondent to attend before learned Additional District Court, Pitapuram on each and every date of hearing and pleaded that the transfer application may be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri G. Venkata Subba Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 3 5. The learned counsel for the respondent represented that there is a threat in the hands of wife if the husband appears before the Court at Pitapuram. It is the admitted case of both the parties that petitioner / wife is currently staying at Tuni and is working in a Government Department. Moreover, no prima facie material has been placed on record by the respondent to show that there was a threat in the hands of the petitioner. 6. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram are that, the distance between Tuni and Narsapuram is approximately 200 kilometers and it is very difficult for her to appear before the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram, on each and every date of adjournment and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to transfer of a case. 7. 7. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 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 appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law 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 the D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram and transfer the same to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram. Further on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the respondent/ husband is working as a private employee at Amaravati, the personal attendance of the respondent/husband has been dispensed with before the transferee Court, except on the days when his presence is required before the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada. 9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada. The learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram, shall transmit the 5 case record in D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada, duly indexed within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada, at 10:30 a.m. on 06.07.2026. Later the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in D.O.P.No.397 of 2025, which case is now under orders of transfer, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when re-conciliation proceedings are being taken up or on the day when his cross-examination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal appearance is required as directed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada. 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: 06.05.2026 JLSR 6 127 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.90 of 2026 Dt. 06.05.2026 JLSR