In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife is generally prioritized over that of the husband when determining the transfer of a case to ensure the ends of justice and accessibility to the court.

ORDER:

Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, as per the Registry endorsement notice sent to the respondent was served. 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 withdraw F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal, 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 as per Hindu Marriage customs and rituals. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Nandyal along with her two minor children aged about 13 years and 10 years.

ii. The petitioner submitted that she has filed a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.86 of 2023 under Sections 498-A and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the III Town Police Station, Nandyal. She further submitted that she has filed M.C.No.52 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance. She has also filed D.V.C. No.18 of 2023 under Section 23 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the said cases are pending adjudication.

iii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Ananthapuramu and Nandyal approximately 200kms and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before thelearned judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

4. Heard 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 at Nandyal along with her two minor children aged about 13 years and 10 years. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the same is pending for adjudication. The material on record further discloses that the petitioner has filed a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.86 of 2023 under Sections 498-A and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the III Town Police Station, Nandyal and she also filed M.C.No.52 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance. She has also filed D.V.C. No.18 of 2023 under Section 23 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the said cases are pending adjudication.

7. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA ¹(2000) 10 SCC 304 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 ²2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 held as follows:

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power u