Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt Manchala Madhavi vs Manchala Venkata Srinivasa Rao on 3 September, 2025
APHC010396732025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 244/2025
Between:
Smt Manchala Madhavi ...PETITIONER
AND
Manchala Venkata Srinivasa Rao ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Y
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. CHAITANYA PONDUGALA
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Y.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service memo dated 18.08.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website has been filed before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the track consignment sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him on 14.08.2025. Therefore, service held sufficient. None appeared for the respondent.
2. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle, Guntur District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, at Bobili, Vizianagaram District.
3. 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 Bapatla District on 27.08.2005, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her children aged about 19 years and 17 years are staying at her parents' house at Parvathipuram Manyam District, depending upon the mercy of her parents and the children are prosecuting their studies. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle, Guntur District, under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage.
II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman having children aged about 19 years and 17 years, who are prosecuting their studies are depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel at a distance of approximately more than 500 Kms from Parvathipuram to Repalle for attending the Court proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle, Guntur District, without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle, Guntur District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, at Bobili, Vizianagaram District.
4. Heard Sri Y.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. 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 her children aged about 19 years and 17 years are staying at her parents' house at Parvathipuram Manyam District and the children of the petitioner are prosecuting their studies at Parvathipuram. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle, Guntur District, under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, 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:
"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 considered 1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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 H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle, Guntur District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court, at Bobili, Vizianagaram District.
9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle, Guntur District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, at Bobili, Vizianagaram District. The Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle, Guntur District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2025 to the Senior Civil Judge Court, at Bobili, Vizianagaram District, 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. 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: 03.09.2025 SRT