1 APHC010243122026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3606] TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 155/2026 Between: 1. YEDAVALLI POOJITHA ALIAS KONDAPALLI POOJITHA,, W/O. KONDAPALLI HARI @ HARI BABU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.2- 172, PONNAPURAM, NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KONDAPALLI HARI ALIAS HARI BABU, S/o. Nagabhushnam, aged about 31 years, residing at Door No.9/105-29, Occupation Photographer, Parvathi Nagar, Mydukur Town Kadapa District. ...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 the H.M.O.P No. 42 of 2026 on the file of the Honble Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Proddatur and transfer the same to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nandyal and pass 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioner in H.M.O.P No. 42 of 2026 on the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Proddatur and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V NITESH The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 155/2026 ORDER: The present application under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), is filed by Yedavalli Poojitha @ Kondapalli Poojitha, for the relief of withdrawing H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026 from the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur and transferring the same to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal. Brief facts of the case: Case of Petitioner: 2. The petitioner pleaded that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 27.03.2024 at Mydukur as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, she joined the respondent for marital life at Mydukur. Initially, they were led happily. Later, the respondent allegedly started harassing her, demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents and in continuation, the respondent perpetuated harassment against her. On 06.07.2025, the respondent forcibly left the petitioner at her parents' house at Ponnapuram. Thereafter, she has been residing with her parents. She lodged a complaint, and a crime was registered as Crime No.180 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 85 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the said crime, upon filing the charge sheet, the same was registered as C.C.No.1027 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nandyal. She also filed an application for maintenance, which is registered as M.C.No.66 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Nandyal. 4 3. The petitioner alleged that the respondent, only to harass her as a counterblast, filed an application for dissolution of marriage on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur, registered as H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026. 4. The petitioner is residing with her parents at Nandyal. Proddatur is 100 kilometres away, which is too far for her to travel to attend the cases there. She is dependent on her parents. She has no independent income, and she cannot travel frequently. It is her case that, at Proddatur, where H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026 is continued, it would be difficult for her to attend the said case by travelling 100 kilometers without any male support. 5. The petitioner asserted that, as two cases are already pending at Nandyal, which are registered by her, attending the cases independently by both parties leads to different findings and conflicting decisions. She is not getting any income from the respondent. In the circumstances, she filed this application to withdraw the said H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026 from the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur and transfer the same to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal. Case of the respondent: 6. The respondent filed a counter opposing the petition. The respondent admitted the marital relationship and pendency of criminal cases in C.C.No.1027 of 2025 and M.C.No.66 of 2025 at Nandyal. He denied all the allegations that he perpetuated harassment against the petitioner. It is his case that the petitioner has expressed before elders within one month of marital life that she is not interested in continuing marital life with the respondent, as her marriage was performed under force. He has financial difficulties. He earns a living as a photographer in Mydukur, Kadapa District. His income is meagre and not sufficient for his survival and maintenance of his aged parents, who are depending on him. If he is directed to attend the 5 court proceedings frequently, he may have difficulty attending the cases. In fact, he is attending the cases at Nandyal. Whenever he attends cases at Nandyal, the petitioner, her parents, and other family members threaten him with dire consequences. 7. He pleaded that, he has to take care of his aged parents who are suffering from different ailments. No cause of action is alleged to file the present petition under Section 24 of CPC. No reasonable grounds are urged to consider the present application. In H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026, despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear properly; meanwhile, filed the present transfer petition and got the stay. With the said plea, he sought dismissal of the petition. Submissions of learned counsels: 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration in matrimonial matters. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent, and she is residing with her parents at Nandyal. The respondent is residing at Proddatur. According to the petitioner, the respondent has sufficient means to maintain his parents and to travel. He argued that, the legal position is that the convenience of the wife is to be seen. The children are minors. The petitioner already moved a criminal complaint under the Domestic Violence Act as well as a maintenance case, which would show that she has no Income to maintain herself. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to allow the petition. 9. The respondent refuted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the marriage is not consummated. The mediations were held, but the petitioner told the elders in the mediation that she is not interested in continuing her marital life, as her marriage was performed under duress, and sought dismissal of the petition. 10. Heard from both learned counsels and perused the record. 6 Discussion: 11. There is no dispute that both parties, after marriage, from the year 2025, have been living separately. They are living separately due to disputes between them. The petitioner alleges that she was forcibly left by the respondent at her parents' house in the year 2025 and since then, she has been residing with her parents. The respondent has not denied that the petitioner is living with her parents at Nandyal. Further, the matrimonial disputes between the parties led to the filing of criminal cases against the respondent, which is the first phase of litigation compared to H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026. C.C.No.1027 of 2025 and M.C.No.66 of 2025 have been registered and are pending. The respondent has stated in his counter that he has been attending the cases at Nandyal. However, he alleged that at the time of his attending the Court at Nandyal, he was receiving life threats from the parents of the petitioner and her relatives. But, he did not file any document to that extent. No specific plea is taken before concerned Court. The respondent alleges that he has financial difficulties, as he earns a meagre amount, which is not sufficient to maintain himself and his aged parents. Such plea requires specific evidence and at this application, this Court cannot consider the same. Both parties admitted that the distance between Nandyal and Proddatur is around 100 kms. The respondent admitted in the counter that he has been attending the cases at Nandyal. 12. In the case of Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, because "if a wife does not have sufficient funds to visit the place where her husband files the divorce petition, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed." 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 7 13. In the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha2, the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 before 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 Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer." The above rulings apply to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner has specifically stated that she has no means, is dependent on her parents and has difficulty in earning her livelihood. In fact, she filed M.C.No.66 of 2025 seeking maintenance. Prima facie, this would show that the respondent has sufficient means but willfully neglected the petitioner. However, the said matter is subject to the findings of the concerned Court. But the fact remains that she filed an application for her maintenance. In such a case, the Court has to consider the difficulty of her travelling to the Court at Proddatur. 14. On perusal of the pleadings, this Court noted that the respondent has been attending the criminal case proceedings at Nandyal. Though the respondent has stated that he received the life threat from the hands of the petitioner, there is no specific plea about the date and circumstances under which the life threat was made. Further, there is no record that the respondent has made any application before the concerned Court at Nandyal stating that he has been receiving life threats. When he is attending the Courts at Nandyal, the sweeping statement in the counter that he has a life threat is 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 8 not acceptable. Further, the petitioner asserts that she is dependent and she has no occupation. The respondent did not deny the same in his counter. 15. On considering both contentions, the fact remains that the respondent is attending the case proceedings in C.C.No.1027 of 2025 and M.C.No.66 of 2025. Prima facie, the petitioner resides with her parents, is dependent on them, and has no means to maintain herself; she has filed an application for maintenance. This would show her dependency and difficulty in travelling and attending the cases at a far distance from her place. 16. In the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai3, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the appearance of the parties through video conference is permissible. 17. In the case of Bheemisetti Suryanarayana v. Bheemisetti Mrudula Naga Bhavani 4 , the Division Bench of this Court observed that the appearance of the parties in family matters for reconciliation through virtual mode is not permissible. However, there is no reference as to appearance of the parties through virtual mode for other purposes. 18. In the case of Krishna Veni Nagam vs Harish Nigam5, it is held that virtual appearance as an alternative to physical appearance is permissible. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “14. One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if proceedings are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by the wife. The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be appropriate that available technology of videoconferencing is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties. We understand that in every district in the country videoconferencing is now available. In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilised and all the High Courts 3 AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2053 4 2026 Supreme (AP) 830 5 2017 (4) SCC 150 9 ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of videoconferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where one of the parties resides outside court's jurisdiction is one of such categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a request for use of videoconferencing, proceedings may be conducted on videoconferencing, obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. In several cases, this Court has directed recording of evidence by videoconferencing [State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 815; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 3 SCC 284 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 705; Budhadev Karmaskar (4) v. State of W.B., (2011) 10 SCC 283 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 285; Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 15 SCC 330 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 473] . ……19. We hope the above arrangement may, to an extent, reduce hardship to the litigants as noted above in the order of this Court dated 9-1-2017 [Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1912 of 2014, order dated 9-1-2017 (SC)] . However, in the present case since the matter is pending in this Court for about three years, we are satisfied that the prayer for transfer may be allowed. Accordingly, we direct that proceedings in Case No. 179A of 2013 under Section 13 of the Act titled Harish Nagam v. Krishna Veni Nagam pending on the file of IInd Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. If the parties seek mediation, the transferee court may explore the possibility of an amicable settlement through mediation. It will be open to the transferee court to conduct the proceedings or record evidence of the witnesses who are unable to appear in court by way of videoconferencing. Records shall be sent by court where proceedings are pending to the transferee court forthwith.” 19. With the above discussion and legal position applying to the present case, relevant things to consider that, if the H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026 is transferred from the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur to the Court at Nandyal, where the two matters are already pending, it may not cause any difficulty or prejudice to the respondent to attend the said cases at Nandyal. The respondent does not need to attend the above two cases at Nandyal. When these three cases between the same parties are dealt with at the same place, it would avoid unnecessary travel for either party, i.e., the petitioner attending the H.M.O.P. and the respondent attending the cases in C.C. and M.C. at Nandyal. The petitioner has to travel only for the one case. At the same time, the respondent has to attend the cases in C.C.No.1027 of 2025 and M.C.No.66 of 2025 at Nandyal. In the circumstances, attending the 10 Courts at Nandyal by the respondent would also help the petitioner to attend the Court in the same premises at Nandyal as well as the witnesses in all the cases. In all the cases, the parties need not travel for every adjournment or proceedings. Considering the difficulty expressed by the respondent, his presence in day-to-day proceedings can be dispensed with if learned counsel represents him, unless his presence is required for mediation, evidence, or for any specific reason the learned judge of the transferee court considers. 20. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that this petition requires consideration, as the difficulties expressed by the petitioner are more than those of the respondent and thus, for the reasons discussed above, this Court is inclined to allow the petition. Result: 21. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal. (ii) The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Proddatur shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026, after duly indexed, to the transferee Court, i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, as expeditiously as possible. (iii) The transferee Court, i.e. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, upon receiving the said H.M.O.P.No.42 of 2026, can re-issue a fresh number and proceed as per due procedure of law. (iv) The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, shall not insist on the presence of the respondent for every adjournment, if he is represented through his counsel, except on the dates as and 11 when his presence is required for mediation or reconciliation or evidence or any specific purpose the Court directs. (v) The transferee Court may look into the possibilities of taking the appearance of the respondent through virtual mode, following the guidelines laid by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J Dated: 01.09.2026 ARR 12 67 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 155/2026 Dated: 01.09.2026 ARR