In matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 of the CPC, the convenience of the wife, especially when residing with minor children and facing socio-economic constraints, is generally given primacy over the convenience of the husband to ensure the ends of justice.

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 to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1913 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Srikakulam, 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 16.02.2023 as per Hindu Marriage customs and rituals in N.T.R. District. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Srikakulam in her parents‟ house along with her minor son aged about 2.5 years.

ii. The petitioner pleaded that she lodged a complaint against the respondent and it was registered as F.I.R.No.4 of 2026 under Section 58 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.14 of 2026, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and she also got filed F.C.O.P.No.6 of 2026, under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking maintenance. Both the cases are pending on the file of the learned Family Jude-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, and the same are pending adjudication.

iii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, filed F.C.O.P.No.1913 of 2025, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking dissolution of marriage, under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is pending adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Srikakulam and Vijayawada is more than 400 kilometers and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

3. Heard Sri T. Radha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Yuvasiva Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are no merits in the present transfer petition and the transfer petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Perused the material available on record.

6. As could be seen from the record, it is evident that the petitioner/ wife instituted two cases vide F.C.O.P.No.6 of 2026 and F.C.O.P.No.14 of 2026. Both the case are pending against the respondent herein before the learned Judge, Family Court, Srikakulam. It is also evident that the respondent/ husband filed F.C.O.P.No.1913 of 2025, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking dissolution of marriage, under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

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 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 t