Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Challa Makkena Sravani vs Challa Hari Krishna on 10 April, 2025
APHC010563632024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 426/2024
Between:
Challa @ Makkena Sravani ...PETITIONER
AND
Challa Hari Krishna ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PULI PRATYUSHA
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for shot 'the C.P.C.') seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District, for trial.
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 was performed on 11.12.2020, at Andugula Kothapalem Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Palnadu District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents' house at Sarvereddypalem Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam Judicial District. The petitioner/wife pleaded that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.
II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pleaded that the petitioner being a woman and depending upon her parents, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which is at a distance of more than 100 Kms from Sarvereddypalem Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District to Narasaraopet without any male support and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, previously the petitioner/wife herein filed Tr.C.M.P.No.157 of 2023, before this Court to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2023, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and that was transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District, but the respondent/husband herein not pressed the said H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2023 and subsequently, he filed present H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, seeking for the same relief i.e., dissolution of the marriage.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Though the matter has been listed under the caption 'for orders', there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents' house and depending upon her parents at Sarvereddypalem Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District and the respondent/husband has instituted a case i.e., H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.
8. 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."
9. 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."
10. 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 taken into consideration 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 seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu 1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District.
11. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2024, to the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam Judicial District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (2) 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: 10.04.2025 CVD