APHC010486462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 304/2025 Between: Kona Bhavana ...PETITIONER AND Polepalli Medhara Amruth ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKULA VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.304 of 2025 ORDER: 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 withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Court, Anantapuramu, and to transfer the same to the Court of the concerned District and Sessions Court in Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, for trial and disposal. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 17.12.2023, in the presence of elders and well-wishers from both sides, at Aswadhama Narayana Swamy Temple, Ballapur, Karnataka, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Nellore. II. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed F.C.O.P. No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Nellore and Anantapuramu is approximately 300 km, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the Family Court at Anantapuramu, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition. 3. Originally the Tr.C.M.P.No.304 of 2025 was allowed on 06.11.2025. Later the respondent herein filed a petition vide I.A.No.2 of 2025, to recall the order dated 06.11.2025. On hearing both sides, the order dated 06.11.2025 is recalled. Later the respondent herein filed a counter and the learned counsel for the respondent herein submitted his arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent appeared through virtual hearing and contended that there are no merits in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner/wife and that the transfer civil miscellaneous petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri Akula Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Nellore, depending upon the mercy of her parents. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide F.C.O.P. No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of the marriage, and the same is pending adjudication. 8. 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 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.” 9. 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that instead of transferring the case from Anatapuramu to Nellore, the case in F.C.O.P. No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu may be transferred to Ongole. It is not the case of either of the parties that the petitioner or the respondent are staying at Ongole. The material available on record prima facie goes to show that the petitioner herein is currently residing at Nellore. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the respondent/husband is working as a Software Employee and he is currently staying at Hyderabad. 11. 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 laws that, in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration rather than the inconvenience of the husband and therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P. No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Further, on considering the representation made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the respondent/husband is working as a Software Employee and he is currently staying at Hyderabad, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e. the petitioner in F.C.O.P. No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, except on the days when his presence is required as per law. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the Order dated 06.11.2025, passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.304 of 2025, the original record in F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2025 was already transmitted by the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu to the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 12. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and F.C.O.P. No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court-cum- VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. Further, the personal attendance of the respondent herein i.e. the petitioner in F.C.O.P. No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, except on the days when his presence is required as per law. 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: 08.01.2026 SRT