Konda Lakshmi Rajamma @ Bukke Lakshmi… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Konda Lakshmi Rajamma @ Bukke Lakshmi… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 withdrawn from the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District; the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge directed to transmit the case record, duly indexed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should be allowed by withdrawing F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 from the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transferring it to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, having regard to the convenience of the petitioner/wife who resides at Kadapa, more than 300 kms away from Vijayawada.

Court's answer

In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration over the inconvenience of the husband.

Ratio / Principle

There are justifiable grounds to allow the petitioner/wife's request to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 from the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer it to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the wife (Konda Lakshmi Rajamma @ Bukke Lakshmi Rajamma) seeking withdrawal of her husband's (Konda Veera Reddy) divorce petition F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024, filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and its transfer to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. Relying on Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304, and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, the Court held that in matrimonial proceedings the convenience of the wife prevails over the inconvenience of the husband; noting that the wife resides separately at Sankarapuram, Kadapa Town, more than 300 kms from Vijayawada, and finds it difficult to travel without male support, the petition was allowed. The case record is to be transmitted, duly indexed, preferably within two weeks. No order as to costs.

APHC010060662025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3397]

THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 47/2025

Between:

Konda Lakshmi Rajamma @ Bukke Lakshmi Rajamma, ...PETITIONER

AND

Konda Veera Reddy

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.KALEEMULLA S

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, for trial.

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and theirmarriage was performed on 10.11.2021, at Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs.In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wifehas been residing separately at Sankarapuram, Kadapa Town. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage with all false and baseless allegations against the petitioner/wife and the same is pending for adjudication.

II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner being a womanandshe has been residing separately at Kadapa town, it is very difficult for her to travelto attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband which is at a distance of more than 300Kms from Sankarapuram Kadapa Town to Vijayawada, without any male support andthat she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

Heard Ms. Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on the him in the month of March, 2025. But there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

Perused the material available on record.

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.”

The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA Vs A.S.SARAVANA

KARTHIK SHA² 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 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 paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws that in

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

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 F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and theF.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.1297 of 2024 to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (2) 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.

_______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Date: 03.04.2025 CVD