Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Koduru Divya Thanuja vs Bandela Chinna Sanjeevarayudu Johnson on 28 July, 2025
APHC010208682025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 145/2025
Between:
Koduru Divya Thanuja ...PETITIONER
AND
Bandela Chinna Sanjeevarayudu Johnson ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B SIVA KESAVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SHAIK MEERAVALI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw D.O.P.No.1402 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur and transfer the same to the Court having jurisdiction at Kurnool District.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at Jammalamadugu Town, YSR Kadapa District on 03.08.2017, as per Christian rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with two children aged about 7 years and 2 years are staying at her parents' house at Gnanapuram, Nandyal Post & District and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before Mangalagiri Town Police Station under Sections 498-A, 420, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.51 of 2024 and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.3 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal and a Maintenance Case vide M.C.(SR)No.1947 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband had filed D.O.P.No.1402 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, under Section 10(1)(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage. II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and having two children aged about 7 years and 2 years, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 270Kms from Nandyal to Guntur District for attending the case proceedings before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur on each and every date of adjournment without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw D.O.P.No.1402 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, and transfer the same to the Court having jurisdiction at Kurnool District.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are no grounds to allow the transfer petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer from Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur to the Court having jurisdiction at Kurnool District and requested this Court to dismiss the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. He further contended that the respondent is working as a Sub-Inspector at Armed Forces and is currently working at Mangalagiri in Octopus Wing, if this Court is inclined to transfer the case from Guntur to Nandyal, the personal attendance of the respondent/husband may be dispensed with before the transferee Court.
4. Heard Sri B.Siva Kesava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shaik Meeravali, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.
5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with two children aged about 7 years and 2 years are staying at her parents' house at Gnanapuram, Nandyal Post & District and depending upon the mercy of her parents and she had filed a Criminal Case vide Cr.No.51 of 2024 against the respondent/husband and the same is pending for investigation. Further, the petitioner had filed a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.3 of 2017, on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal and a Maintenance Case vide M.C.(SR)No.1947 of 2025, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. The respondent/husband has filed D.O.P.No.1402 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, under Section 10(1)(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage.
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:
1
(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 "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 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 considered than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw D.O.P.No.1402 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur and transfer the same to the III Additional District Judge, Nandyal. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the respondent /husband is working as a Sub-Inspector at Armed Forces and is currently working at Mangalagiri in Octopus Wing, the personal attendance of the respondent/husband has been dispensed with before the transferee Court, except on the days when his presence is required before the learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal.
9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and D.O.P.No.1402 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the III Additional District Judge, Nandyal. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, shall transmit the case record in D.O.P.No.1402 of 2024 to the III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, on 20.08.2025, at 10.30.a.m., later the learned III Additional District Judge, Nandyal, is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in D.O.P.No.1402 of 2024, as long as his counsel 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 III Additional District Judge, Nandyal. 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: 28.07.2025 SRT