THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.32 of 2026

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.1433 of 2025, on the file of the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, and to transfer the same to the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, 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 09.04.2017 in Vijayawada, 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 Guntur, along with her female child aged about six years. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that she filed D.V.C.No.179 of 2025, on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Guntur and C.C.No.2596 of 2023, on the file of learned Special Mobile Court, Guntur and the same are 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 F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025, on the file of learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage, and the same is also pending for adjudication.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, set aside the ex parte order in F.C.O.P. No.1433 of 2025 and restored the case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent represented that they have filed a counter and the same is placed on record. He contended that there are no grounds in the present transfer application seeking transfer of the case, and that the grounds urged by the petitioner are not sufficient to transfer the case from Vijayawada to Guntur, as the distance between the two cities i.e., Vijayawada and Guntur is hardly 35 kms. Therefore, this transfer application is liable to be dismissed.

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 Guntur along with her female child. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025, on the file of learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is also pending for adjudication. The material on record further discloses that the petitioner filed D.V.C.No.179 of 2025, on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Guntur and C.C.No.2596 of 2023, on the file of learned Special Mobile Court, Guntur and the same are 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 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 standard of life prior to the marriage and s