Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19656
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Injeti Kalavathi – Appellant
Versus
Injeti Jnana Prakash Babu – Respondent
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.90 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Venkata Subba Raju
For the Respondents: B.V. Anjaneyulu
In matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 of the CPC, the convenience of the wife is generally given priority over that of the husband to ensure the ends of justice.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the transfer of divorce proceedings initiated under Section 10 (ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, from the Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram to the Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada. The petitioner, a government employee residing in Tuni, contended that the distance of approximately 200 kilometers made it difficult to attend proceedings. The respondent opposed the transfer, citing his employment in Amaravati and alleging potential threats in Pitapuram. The primary issue was whether the convenience of the wife should prevail over that of the husband in the transfer of matrimonial proceedings. Relying on the ratio in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the court observed that in matrimonial matters, the ends of justice demand that the convenience of the wife generally be prioritized, considering the socio-economic paradigm of Indian society. In the result, the present petition is allowed and D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for transfer of matrimonial case based on wife's residential hardship. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. prioritizing wife's convenience in matrimonial transfers based on judicial precedent. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. granting transfer while dispensing with husband's personal appearance to balance interests. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER:
The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 13.02.2021 at Yelamanchili, West Godavari District and in view of the matrimonial disputes between both the parties, they are living separately. The petitioner pleaded that she lodged a complaint under Section 498-A before the Yelamanchili police station, the same was registered as Crime No.111 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Narasapuram, West Godavari District, and the same is pending adjudication.
II. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed D.O.P.No.397 of 2025, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narsapuram, seeking divorce, under Section 10 (ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, Amendment Act, 2001.
III. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a woman and she is working in Government department and currently staying at Tuni and it is very difficult for her for attending the divorce case proceedings before the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram, on each and every date of adjournment and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to transfer D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram, Kakinada.
3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit by denying the material allegations leveled in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband contended that there are no merits in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner and requested to dismiss the transfer petition. He further represented that the respondent herein is working as a private employee in Amaravati and that it is very difficult for the respondent to attend before learned Additional District Court, Pitapuram on each and every date of hearing and pleaded that the transfer application may be dismissed.
4. Heard Sri G. Venkata Subba Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent represented that there is a threat in the hands of wife if the husband appears before the Court at Pitapuram. It is the admitted case of both the parties that petitioner / wife is currently staying at Tuni and is working in a Government Department. Moreover, no prima facie material has been placed on record by the respondent to show that there was a threat in the hands of the petitioner.
6. The grounds urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.397 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram to the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Pitapuram are that, the distance between Tuni and Narsapuram is approximately 200 kilometers and it is very difficult for her to appear before the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Narasapuram, on each and every date of adjournment and that she was constrained to file the present petition again
