Egitela @ Pagadala Sandhya Vs Egitela Nrendra

EGITELA @ PAGADALA SANDHYA, W/O EGITELA NARENDRA, D/O P.BRAMHAIAH, AGED 25 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O MYSURUVARIPALLI VILLAGE, RIY. KODURU MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516 101.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

EGITELA NRENDRA, S/o late Narasimhulu, Aged 32 years. Business, R/o Door No. 28-9-415, Water Tank Street, Near Sivalayam, Venkateswarapuram, Nellore city, SPSR Nellore District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased topleased to withdraw and transfer FCOP No. 125 of 2025 from the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore to the court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajampet and to pass

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all the further proceedings in F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court nellore pending disposal of the of the above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition and to pass

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶20

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, proof of service Memo has been field before the Registry on 06.10.2025 vide U.S.R.No.111807 of 2025, along with the Postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website and the same is placed on the record. As per the Postal Track Consignment Sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him on 04.09.2025. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’.

¶24

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 for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajampet, for trial.

¶25

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶26

I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 07.08.2016, in the presence of both side elders and well wishers at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Penchalakona, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Later, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the

¶27

spouses; the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her two (02) children aged about 7 & 4 years respectively and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Mysuruvaripalli Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, Annamayya District.

¶28

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband on 30.10.2024, which was registered as F.I.R.No.292 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 79 r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Railway Koduru Police Station, after completion of investigation, the same was numbered as C.C.No.53 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur, and she also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.10 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur, under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. 2023, and the aforesaid cases are pending for adjudication before the competent Courts at Railway Kodur, Annamayya District.

¶29

III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband herein had filed F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court,

¶30

Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶31

IV. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend

¶32

that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately along with her two (02) children aged about 7 & 4 years respectively and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Mysuruvaripalli Village, Annamayya District and the distance between the Mysuruvaripalli Village and Nellore is more than 150Kms, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the restitution case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband, before the Court at Nellore, without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajamept.

¶33

Heard Sri Bajali Medamalli, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

Though registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’.

¶35

Perused the material available on record.

¶36

The material on record prima facie goes to shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her children, at her parents’ house at Mysuruvaripalli Village, Annamayya District and she has instituted two (02) cases against the respondent/husband herein vide C.C.No.53 of 2025 and Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.10 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur, under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. 2023, and the aforesaid cases are pending for adjudication before the competent Courts at Railway Kodur, Annamayya District. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶37

The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha¹ held as follows:

¶38

“ 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 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

¶39

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶40

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

¶41

On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law 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 withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajamept.

¶42

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajamept. The learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2025 to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Rajamept, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim Order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶44

Date: 06.10.2025

¶45

CVD

Egitela @ Pagadala Sandhya v. Egitela Nrendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Egitela @ Pagadala Sandhya v. Egitela Nrendra

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

Meeniga Santhi Kumari @ Boda Santhi Kumari Vs Boda Hemanth Kumar

V. Bhaskar Reddy, Kurnool Dist. Vs Kondapuram Rami Reddy, Kurnool Dist.

Bhimavarapu Subba Reddy Vs B. Thirupathamma(died per lrs r-3)

Velagala Chiranjeevi Reddy Vs Satti Likhitha @ Valagala Likhitha

Thota Lakshmi, Vs Thota Narayana Murthy @ Vishnu Murthy

Abburi Sowjanya @ Nalluru Sowjanya Vs Nalluru Venkata Murali Ratnakar