APHC010026982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 16/2026 Between: 1. MADINENI ASHRITHA, D/O VENKATA RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO. 191, 5TH ROAD, VIJAYA NAGAR COLONY BUILT UP CIRCLE, CHENNUR ROAD, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516162 ...PETITIONER AND 1. BHIMA HARI VARA PRASAD, S/o. B. Rama Krishna, Aged 36 years. Occupation Assistant Professor, R/o. Door. No.2/428-86, Balaji Complex, Near Sai Pooja Samagri Shop, Nandyal, Nandyal Town, Andhra Pradesh - 518501 ...RESPONDENT Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased topleased to withdraw H.M.O.P. No. 153/2025 from the file of the Hon'ble II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, and transfer the same to the file of the Hon'ble Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, and pass Prayer is amended as per court order dated 24/2/2026 in I.A.No.3/2026 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Petition in H.M.O.P. No. 153/2025 on the file of the Hon‟ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, and and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 153/2025 on the file of the Hon‟ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to amend the main prayer and interlocutory prayer by replacing "Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal" with "Hon'ble II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal" and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BUDATI GNANENDER KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.16 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 withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2025, on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, and to transfer the same to the file of the learned Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa 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 18.08.2021 in Nandyal, 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 Kadapa, along with her female child aged about three years and the respondent herein is working as an Assistant Professor at YSR Horticulture Univesity, Railway Koduru, Annamannya District. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that she filed a Domestic Violence Case and Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kadapa and the same are pending for adjudication. ii. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2025, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage, and the same is also pending for adjudication. iii. The petitioner further pleaded that she is living at her parents‟ house at Kadapa along with her female child aged about 3 years depending upon the mercy of her parents‟ and that it is very difficult for her to appear before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in connection with H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2025 and that she is constrained to file this application. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent represented that they have filed a counter by denying the allegations leveled by the petitioner in her affidavit and contended that the petitioner has willfully suppressed the crucial fact that from 2018 to 2021, she worked as a Stenographer at the Criminal Court in Kadapa on a contract basis and she maintains strong professional ties, influence and daily acquaintance with the court staff in the Kadapa District Courts. The respondent further contended that the respondent herein is working as an Assistant Professor at YSR Horticulture Univesity, Railway Koduru and that in case if H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court at Kadapa the respondent herein will face severe difficulties as the petitioner is a highly influential women at Kadapa and therefore, this transfer application is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing in her parents at Kadapa along with her female child aged about 3 years. The material on record further reveals that the petitioner filed Domestic Violence Case and Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent on the file of learned Judge, Family Court at Kadapa and the same are pending for adjudication. The respondent herein is attending the said cases. Furthermore, it is evident that the respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2025, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is pending for adjudication. Even as per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the petitioner is not working as Stenographer since 2022 in any other Courts at Kadapa. Therefore, there is no subsistence in the contention of respondent that the petitioner is having strong ties and she is having high influence or acquaintance with the Court staff at Kadapa. 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 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 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 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. 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 and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Furthermore, there are two more cases pending against the respondent herein at Kadapa before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class and the respondent herein is also attending before the said Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is desirable to transfer H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2025 on the 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal to the file of the learned Family Court at Kadapa. On considering the employment of the respondent at Railway Koduru, since he is working as an Assistant Professor in Horticulture Department, this Court is of the considered view that it is desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the Respondent herein i.e., petitioner in the main case before the learned Judge, Family Court at Kadapa except on the days his presence is required before the said Court. 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.MO.P.No.153 of 2025, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. 11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2025, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa. The learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2025, to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, on 05.05.2026 at 10.30 A.M. The transferee Court i.e., learned Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.153 of 2025, as long as his counsel on record 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 Judge, Family Court, Kadapa. 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: 16.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C by 17.04.2026 JLSR 16 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.16 of 2026 Date: 16.04.2026 JLSR