Puchakayala @ Veerapaneni Padmaja Vs Veerapaneni Rama Krishna

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,(for short ‘the C.P.C.’) seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.202 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the III Additional Senior Civil

¶21

Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, for trial.

¶22

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶23

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 19.08.2021 at Vedika Convention, Kakinada, East Godavari District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock period, the petitioner and respondent were blessed with a male child and later, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her male child aged about 2 years at her parents’ house at Kakinada, East Godavari District. The petitioner/wife pleaded that, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband dated 28.12.2024, in FIR No.89 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before Mahila Police Station, Kakinada and the same is pending for investigation. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.146 of 2024, on the file of the Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband and she also filed a Domestic Violence Case vide (D.V.C) D.I.R.No.96 of 2024, before the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District and all the three (3) cases are pending for adjudication before the competent Courts at Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶24

II.The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause unnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.202

¶25

of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶26

III.The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she being a woman, residing separately along with her child aged about two (2) years and also depending upon her parents at Kakinada, East Godavari District, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 150 Kms from Kakinadato Eluruto attend the divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any male support and that she is constrained to file the present petition seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.202 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that counter-affidavit has been filed before the Registry. He would further contend that there are no merits in the present case filed by the petitioner/wife and the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition may be dismissed.

¶28

Heard Sri A. K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. P. Raju, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶29

Perused the material available on record.

¶30

The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife

¶31

has been residing separately along with her child at her parents’ house at

¶32

Kakinada. She has instituted three (3) cases i.e., a criminal case under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023, Maintenance Case and Domestic Violence Case against the respondent/husband herein and all the cases are pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before the competent Courts at Kakinada. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has also instituted a case i.e., H.M.O.P.No.202 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage against the petitioner/wife and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶33

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.”

¶34

The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA² , held as follows:

¶35

“ 9. The cardinal principles 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

¶36

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶37

subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

¶38

On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.202 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is a private employee and he is working at Hyderabad, in case, if the said case is transferred from Eluru to Kakinada, he will face some difficulties financially and it will cause much more hardship to him. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is desirable to dispense with the personal attendance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.202 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, before the transferee Court.

¶39

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.202 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.202 of 2024, to the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Further the personal attendance of the respondent/husband i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.202 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Both the parties are directed to appear before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, on 07.05.2025, at 10.30 a.m. Later the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, is instructed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.202 of 2024, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when re-conciliation proceedings are being taken up or on the day when his cross-examination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal appearance is required as directed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim

¶41

order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶43

Date: 08.04.2025 CVD

Puchakayala @ Veerapaneni Padmaja v. Veerapaneni Rama Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puchakayala @ Veerapaneni Padmaja v. Veerapaneni Rama Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muli Siva Reddy Vs Kambam Venkata Reddy

Sathivada Sireesha @ Jamuna, Vs Pothala Srinivasa Rao

Yarraguntla Samson Daniel @ Prakasam Vs Puvvada Venkata Gopala Krishna Murthy (died)

M. Danial Pratap Vs Sri R.Venkat Rao

Singaram Mani Vs Syed Khadar Beebi

Yaragorla Venkateswarlu Vs Ch. Venkata Radha Krishna (died)