THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.132 of 2026 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 to withdraw D.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali to the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Family Court, Nellore, 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 29.12.2024 as per Christian rites and traditions at Tenali. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately Venkatagiri along with her children. ii. The petitioner submitted that she has filed lodged a complaint before the Venkatagiri police station for the offences punishable under Section 85 r/s 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.126 of 2024 and she had filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.09 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri and the same is pending adjudication. 2 iii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed D.O.P.No.05 of 2024, on the file of learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage and the same is pending adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Venkatagiri and Tenali more than 300kms and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition. 3. Heard Sri R. Abishek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, through virtual mode. As per Registry endorsement, notice sent to the respondent was served. None appeared for respondent. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Venkatagiri along with her children. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed D.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 10 (1) (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 and the same is pending adjudication. The material on record further discloses that the petitioner has filed Maintenance case vide M.C.No.09 3 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri and the same is pending for adjudication. 6. 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.” 7. 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.” 8. 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 4 request made by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali to the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Nellore. 9. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and D.O.P.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Nellore. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali shall transmit the case record in D.O.P.No.5 of 2024, to the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Nellore, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one (01) week 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: 15.06.2026 JLSR 5 58 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.132 of 2026 Date: 15.06.2026 JLSR