Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Chingipalli Deepthi, vs Sri.Ponna Sudheer Kumar, on 5 August, 2025
APHC010305352025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 188/2025
Between:
1. SMT. CHINGIPALLI DEEPTHI, W/O PONNA SUDHEER KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.26-12-1571,
B.V.NAGAR, NELLORE TOWN- 524004.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SRI PONNA SUDHEER KUMAR, S/o Naradha Muni, Aged about 32
years, Occ software Engineer at Capgemini. R/o Balamvaripalli,
Regallu Revenue village and Post, Peleru Mandal, Annamayya 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 to may be
pleased to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the
Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Annamayya District, to the Court of the Hon'ble
Family Court, Nellore, and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
Hon'ble Court is pleased to stay of all further proceedings in the
H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2025, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,
Piler, Chittor District.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Y L SIVA KALPANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Today when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service Memo has been field in the Registry, on 04.08.2025 and the same is placed on record. As per the proof of service Memo, the Registered Notice sent to the respondent was served on him. None appeared for the respondent. Therefore, 'service held sufficient'.
2. 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 transfer of H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, for trial.
3. 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 performed on 16.10.2024, with the blessings of both side elders at S.V.S.S. Kalyana Mandapam, Tirupati, Annnamayya District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Later, in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents' house at Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, the petitioner/wife lodged a complaint, against the respondent/husband and his family members, dated 10.04.2025, in Crime No.43 of 2025, under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Nellore, the same is pending for investigation.
II. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contended that the petitioner being a woman and residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Nellore, it is very difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings before the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, which is situated at a distance of more than 200 Kms from Nellore to Piler without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, 'service held sufficient'.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Nellore and she has instituted a Criminal Case i.e., under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Mahila Police Station, Nellore and the same is pending for investigation. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication.
8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha1 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 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."
9. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, for seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District.
10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.32 of 2025, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks 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: 05.08.2025 CVD