THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.81 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 to withdraw G.O.P.No.371 of 2025 on the file of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District,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 28.02.2019 as per Hindu Marriage customs and rituals. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately Proddatur along with her minor daughter aged about 5 years.

ii. The petitioner submitted that she has filed a Dowry harassment case vide C.C.No.1092 of 2024, D.V.C.No.8 of 2024 and a maintenance case vide M.C.No.11 of 2025 and all these cases were pending adjudication before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. She further stated that the respondent filed a divorce case at Srikalahasti and the same was transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur and the same is also pending adjudication.

iii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filedG.O.P.No.371 of 2025, on the file of learned XII Additional District Judge, Family Court, Srikalahasti seeking custody of minor child under Section25 of Guardian and Wards Act and the same is pending adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Srikalahasti and Proddatur more than 200kms and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned XII Additional District Judge, Family Court, Srikalahasti on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As per Registry endorsement, notice sent to the respondent was served. None appeared for respondent.

4. Perused the material available on record.

5. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at Proddatur along with her minor daughter aged about 5 years. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed G.O.P.No.371 of 2025, on the file of learned XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti seeking custody of minor child and the same is pending adjudication. The material on record further discloses that the petitioner has filed C.C.No.1092 of 2024, Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.8 of 2024 and a maintenance case vide M.C.No.11 of 2025, and the same are pending before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur for adjudication. The material on record further reveals that a divorce case filed by the respondent has been transferred from Srikalahasti to Proddatur and the same is also pending for adjudication before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

6. 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.”

7. 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 th