SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Jagileti Aruna, W/o. M. Praveen Kumar, D/o. Late J. Jaya Prakash Goud – Petitioner 
Versus 
Malesetty Praveen Kumar, S/o Late M. Krishnaiah – Respondent
Trans. Civil MISC. Petition No. 394 of 2025
Decided On : 07-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.V. L. Narasimha Rao
For the Respondent: Kambyagari Saipratap

In matrimonial transfer petitions, the wife's convenience is paramount, ensuring that justice is upheld as per socio-economic considerations.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 24 - Transfer of matrimonial proceedings - The petitioner sought to withdraw a divorce petition and transfer it to a court nearer to her residence due to difficulties in attending the original court, supported by the principle that a wife's convenience should be prioritized in such matters. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 & 4 - Ongoing complaints of harassment and dowry-related offenses against the respondent, indicating grounds for seeking maintenance and petitioning for divorce. (Paras 2-4)

(C) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Petitioner’s request for transfer aligns with precedents emphasizing justice in matrimonial matters, focusing on the economic and social circumstances of the wife. (Paras 7-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the wife who filed a transfer petition under CPC due to ongoing matrimonial disputes and harassment. She faces challenges in attending court proceedings in a distant location from her residence.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the transfer for the welfare of the wife, emphasizing her convenience in matrimonial cases.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the transfer of the divorce proceedings was justified based on the convenience of the wife.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial transfers and allowed the transfer request to ensure justice and facilitate her attendance at court.

Result: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claims and background information. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. pending cases related to divorce and related issues. (Para 6)
3. precedent on transfer petitions for wives. (Para 7)
4. guiding principles for matrimonial transfer motions. (Para 8 , 9)
5. final decision allowing the transfer of case. (Para 10)

ORDER :

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 to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Annamayya (Kadapa) District and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur District, to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.232 of 2025, for trail and disposal of the same.

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 solemnized on 22.12.2013, in the presence of both side elders and well-wishers at Chowdeswari Temple, Rajamfpet Town, Annamayya (Kadapa) District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents’ house at Gooty, Ananthapur District.

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband the petitioner herein lodged a compliant against the respondent and his family members dated 19.03.2025, which was registered as F.I.R.No.55 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 85 r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Gooty Police Station, the same is pending for investigation. She also filed two (2) other cases against the respondent/husband herein viz., Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.14 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty, under Section 144 (1) of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband and H.M.O.P.No.232 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same are pending for adjudication.

III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Annamayya (Kadapa) District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication.

IV. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, being a woman, has been residing separately and is depending upon the mercy of her parents at Gooty Town. The distance between Gooty and Rajampet is more than 200Kms, and it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Rajampet without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Annamayya District and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur District, to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.232 of 2025, for trail and disposal of the same.

3. Mr. K. Sai Pratap, learned counsel learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there are no valid grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife herein and the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition may be dismissed. He further submitted that the respondent/husband herein is residing at Rajampet and working as a Data Entry Operator (DEO) in a private college and in case, if this Court is inclined to transfer the said case (H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2025) from Rajampet to Gooty, the personal appearance of the respondent herein may be dispensed with before the transferee Court.

4. Heard Mr. K.V

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top