APHC010486462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3397]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 304/2025 Between:

Kona Bhavana ...PETITIONER AND Polepalli Medhara Amruth ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKULA VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent:

1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.304 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 F.C.O.P.No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Court, Anantapuramu, and to transfer the same to the Court of the concerned District and Sessions Court in Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, 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 17.12.2023, in the presence of elders and well-wishers from both sides, at Aswadhama Narayana Swamy Temple, Ballapur, Karnataka, 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 Nellore.

II. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed F.C.O.P. No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Nellore and Anantapuramu is approximately 300 km, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the Family Court at Anantapuramu, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

3. Originally the Tr.C.M.P.No.304 of 2025 was allowed on 06.11.2025. Later the respondent herein filed a petition vide I.A.No.2 of 2025, to recall the order dated 06.11.2025. On hearing both sides, the order dated 06.11.2025 is recalled. Later the respondent herein filed a counter and the learned counsel for the respondent herein submitted his arguments.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent appeared through virtual hearing and contended that there are no merits in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner/wife and that the transfer civil miscellaneous petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard Sri Akula Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Nellore, depending upon the mercy of her parents. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide F.C.O.P. No.143 of 2025, on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of the marriage, and the same is pending 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 Civi