Arava Jyoshna Vs Paturi Harihara Kumar Reddy

The petitioner/wife herein filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.116 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, to the Senior Civil Judge, Pileru, or any competent Family Court at Pileru, Chittoor District, for trial.

¶20

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶21

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 10.02.2023 at T.T.D. Kalyana Mandapdam, Mukkanvaripalli, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wifeis staying separately at her parents’ house at Reddyvaripalli Village, Pileru Mandal, Annamayya District.The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, to causeunnecessary inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filedH.M.O.P.No.116 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage with false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner/wife and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶22

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she being a woman, residing separately and also depending upon her parents at Reddyvaripalli Village, it is very difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 200

¶23

Kms from Reddyvaripalli Village to Rajampet, to 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 transfer of H.M.O.P.No.116 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, to the Senior Civil Judge, Pileru, or any competent Family Court at Pileru, Chittoor District.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that counter-affidavit has been filed along with the vacate stay petition before the Registry and the same is placed on record. He would further contend that there is no justification seeking to transfer the present case from Rajampet to Pileru and he further contend that the respondent is a private employee and there are no other cases in between both the parties either at Pileru or at Rajampet.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anindita Das Vs Srijit Das¹ .

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly represented that there are

¶27

no other cases between both the parties except this case either at Pileru or at Rajampet.

¶28

Heard Sri K. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Deera Kanishka, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶29

Perused the material available on record.

¶30

1 (2006) 9 SCC 197

¶31

The material on record prima facie goes to show that, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents’ house and depending upon her parents at Reddyvaripalli Village. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a case i.e., H.M.O.P.No.116 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage against the petitioner/wife and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶32

The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA² , 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.”

¶33

The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA³ , held as follows:

¶34

“ 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 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

¶35

2 (2000) 10 SCC 304 3 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶36

paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

¶37

On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra 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 transfer of H.M.O.P.No.116 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District to the Senior Civil Judge, Pileru, Chittoor District. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is a private employee, therefore, this Court is 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.116 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, before the transferee Court .

¶38

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.116 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Pileru, Chittoor District. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.116 of 2024to the Senior Civil Judge, Pileru, Chittoor District, duly indexed as

¶39

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.116 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Pileru, Chittoor District. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge, Pileru, Chittoor District, on 05.05.2025, at 10.30 a.m. Later the Senior Civil Judge, Pileru, Chittoor District is directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitionerinH.M.O.P.No.116 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 Senior Civil Judge, Pileru, Chittoor District. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

Date: 03.04.2025

¶42

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶43

CVD

Arava Jyoshna v. Paturi Harihara Kumar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arava Jyoshna v. Paturi Harihara Kumar Reddy

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

Shaik Masthan Bee @ Nazma Vs Shaik Nagur Valli

Rachumallu Varadaraju Gupta, Vs Rachumallu Harika

Avuthu Rangamma Died per Lr Vs Avuthu Rama Subba Reddy

Gogineni Raghavamma Vs Neelam Syamala

Konda Lakshmi Rajamma @ Bukke Lakshmi Rajamma, Vs Konda Veera Reddy

Dasari Nagaiah Vs Nagireddy China Veera Reddy