Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Komara Leela Bhavani vs Komara Aravind on 27 March, 2025
APHC010600822024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 17/2025
Between:
Komara Leela Bhavani ...PETITIONER
AND
Komara Aravind ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P RAJESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PARTY IN PERSON
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.17 of 2025
ORDER:
The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw HMOP No.140 of 2024 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala, and to transfer the same to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajahmahendravaram or to the learned Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage has been performed at the Manukonda Kalyana Mandapam, Macherla, on 15.02.2023, as per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife, along with minor male child, is staying at her parents' house at Rajahmahendravaram. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint vide FIR No.57 of 2024 before the Disha Police Station, under Sections 498-A & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, read with Section 34 of the IPC. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court, and the same was taken on file. The 3 petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a maintenance case vide MC No.87 of 2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmahendravaram, under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is pending for adjudication.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband has filed HMOP No.140 of 2024 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. He further contended that it is very difficult for the petitioner, being a woman, having a minor male child, depending upon her parents, to travel at a distance of more than 330 Kms. from Rajahmahendravaram to Gurazala without any male support, and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw HMOP No.140 of 2024 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala, and to transfer the same to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajahmahendravaram or to the learned Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District.
4. Heard Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, who is appearing as party in person. Perused the material available on record.
4
5. The respondent, who is appearing as party in person, has fairly represented that he has no objection to allow the present petition. He submitted that he is working as a Software Engineer at Hyderabad and if this Court is inclined to transfer the HMOP, his personal appearance may be dispensed with before the learned transferee Court.
6. 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 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."
7. On considering the submissions made by 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 than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are grounds to consider 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 the request of the petitioner/wife to withdraw HMOP No.140 of 2024 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala, and to transfer the same to the learned Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District.
8. On considering the submissions made by the respondent, because of his employment at Hyderabad, his personal appearance before the learned transferee Court i.e., learned Family Court at Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, has been dispensed with, except on the days when his presence is required as per law.
9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and HMOP No.140 of 2024 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the learned Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala, shall transmit the case record in HMOP No.140 of 2024 to the learned Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari 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. Both the parties shall appear before the learned Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District (Transferee Court), on 25.04.2025 at 10.30 A.M. Later, the personal appearance of the respondent i.e., the petitioner before the learned transferee Court is dispensed with except on the 6 days when his presence is required before the learned trial Court as per law. 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 27th March, 2025 cbn 7 208 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.17 of 2025 27th March, 2025 cbn