THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.356 of 2025

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 withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.193 of 2024, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, and to transfer the same to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal.

2. 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 solemnized on 17.10.2020 at respondent‟s residence, Saidadupalli Village, Rapuru Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam along with her male child aged about four years. The petitioner further pleaded that she lodged a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and the same was registered as FIR No.25 of 2023, on the file of Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam and the same is numbered as C.C.No.2411 of 2023, on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending for adjudication.

ii. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.193 of 2024, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage, and the same is also pending for adjudication.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner, being a woman, has been residing at her parents‟ house along with her male child at Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam and depending upon the mercy of her parents and the distance between Gudur and Visakhapatnam is approximately 500 Kms and it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Gudur without any male assistance, and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.193 of 2024, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, and transfer the same to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam District, for trial and disposal of the same.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the respondent herein is working as a Software Engineer and that there are no merits in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner, and the petition may be dismissed. He would further contend that in case, if this Court transfers the said H.M.O.P.No.193 of 2024 to the Court at Visakhapatnam, it would be very difficult for the respondent/husband herein to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing with her parents in Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide H.M.O.P.No.193 of 2024, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, seeking dissolution of marriage, and the same is also 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 Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 held as follows:

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Proce