THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.402 of 2025

ORDER:

Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, none appeared for respondent. As per the Registry endorsement, registered notice sent by the Registry to the respondent was served on 20.12.2025. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, „service held sufficient‟.

2. 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 transfer the F.C.O.P.No.1777 of 2024, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, to the file of learned XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District for trial and disposal.

3. 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 27.01.2022 at CSI St.Paul‟s Basilica, Gopalreddy Road as per Christian Religious rites and caste customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Polukonda Village. The petitioner lodged a complaint on 25.01.2025 under Section 85 BNS, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is registered as FIR.No.06 of 2025 and she also got filed I.D.O.P.No.160 of 2025, on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights, which was subsequently transferred to learned XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada and the same is pending for adjudication.

ii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed F.C.O.P.No.1777 of 2024, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 10(x) of Indian Divorce Act, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

4. Heard Sri B.V.Anjaneyulu learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Perused the material available on record.

6. 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 and 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.1777 of 2024, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 10(x) of Indian Divorce Act, and the same is pending for adjudication. The material available on record further reveals that the petitioner herein filed I.D.O.P.No.160 of 2025, for seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending before Additional District Court, Gudivada.

7. 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.”

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:

(2000) 10 SCC 304

“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 int