In matrimonial proceedings, a wife's convenience takes precedence in considering transfer petitions under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. 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 for withdrawal of F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for trial.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 14.02.2013, at Hotel Sarovar Gardend, Ongole, Prakasam District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Later, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Narasaraopet, Palnadu District.

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause in convenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that she being a woman, residing separately at her parents' house at Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband would contend that there are no other pending cases between both the parties, except the said case filed by the respondent/husband herein against the petitioner/wife i.e., F.C.O.P. No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record.

5. Perused the material available on record.

6. 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 Narasaraopet. Furthermore, the material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband has instituted F.C.O.P.No.24 of 2024 on the file of the Family Judge-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

7. The Apex Court in a case of Geeta Heera Vs. Harish Chander Heera , (2000) 10 SCC 304 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.”

8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 held as follows:

“9. The cardinal principles 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