THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.409 of 2025 ORDER: Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, proof of service Memo has been field before the Registry on 23.12.2025 vide U.S.R.No.151935 of 2025, along with the Postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website and the same has been placed on record. As per the Postal Track Consignment Sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on 17.12.2025. 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 to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.185 of 2024, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, to the file of learned IX Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court at Rajahmundry for trial and disposal. 3. 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 23.04.2015 at Rajahmundry, as per Hindu Rights and 2 Customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her mother‟s house at Hyderabad. The petitioner got filed F.C.O.P.No.211 of 2025, on the file of learned IX Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court at Rajahmundry, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication. ii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed H.M.O.P.No.185 of 2024, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Hyderabad and Bhimavaram is approximately 400 kms, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition. 4. Heard Ms.M.Aruna, learned counsel, representing Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. 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 mother‟s house at Hyderabad and depending upon the mercy of mother. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.185 of 2024, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner herein also filed F.C.O.P.No.211 of 2025, before Family Court at Rajahmundry for seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 7. 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.” 8. 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 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.” 9. 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 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 H.M.O.P.No.185 of 2024, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. 10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and H.M.O.P.No.185 of 2024, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge- cum-Family Court at Rajahmundry. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, shall transmit the case record in 5 H.M.O.P.No.185 of 2024, to the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court at Rajahmundry, 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: 05.01.2026 MH 6 7 01 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.409 of 2025 Date: 05.01.2026 MH