Yarlagadda @ Nimmagadda Anusha Vs Yarlagadda Suresh Babu

YARLAGADDA @ NIMMAGADDA ANUSHA, W/O. SURESH BABU, D/O.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O PANIDAM VILLAGE, SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

YARLAGADDA SURESH BABU, s/o. Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ Private Employee, Rio. D.No.18-140, Masco Bazaar, Karamchedu Village and Mandal, Bapatla 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 H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2025 from the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, Bapatla District, and transfer the same to the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District, and pass

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parchur including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Tr.C.M.P. and to pass

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.KAMIREDDY DIVYA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶20

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.13 of 2026

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms. Kamireddy Divya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proof of service Memo was before the Registry on 02.03.2026 vide U.S.R.No.26458 of 2026, along with the Postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website and the same is placed on record. As per the Postal Track Consignment Sheet, the registered notice sent to the learned counsel on record appearing for the respondent before the trial Court and the same was duly served on 25.02.2026. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, „service held sufficient‟.

¶25

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 H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Parchur, Bapatla District, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli, Palnadu District, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶26

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶27

I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was

¶28

solemnized on 01.05.2015, in the presence of both side

¶29

elders and well-wishers, at Yarlagaddavari Kalyanamandapam, Karamchedu Village, Prakasam District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner/wife and respondent/husband were blessed with two (02) children. Thereafter, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner/wife along with her children have been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Panidam Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

¶30

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Parchur, Bapatla District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately along with her children aged about 9 & 8 years respectively and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Panidam Village, and therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which

¶32

was filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Parchur without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Parchur, Bapatla District, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli, Palnadu District, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶33

5. Heard Ms. Kamireddy Divya, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

Though notice has been served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, „service is held sufficient‟.

¶35

7. Perused the material available on record.

¶36

The material on record prima facie goes to shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife herein has been residing separately along with her children in her parents‟ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Panidam Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Parchur, Bapatla District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶37

The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER

¶38

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.”

¶39

The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha² held as follows:

¶40

“ 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.”

¶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 laws that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience caused to the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to

¶42

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶43

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶44

consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Parchur, Bapatla District, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli, Palnadu District.

¶45

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Parchur, Bapatla District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, Bapatla District, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.55 of 2025, to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Palnadu District, 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.

¶46

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

¶47

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶48

Date: 09.03.2026 CVD

Yarlagadda @ Nimmagadda Anusha v. Yarlagadda Suresh Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yarlagadda @ Nimmagadda Anusha v. Yarlagadda Suresh Babu

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

Gunji @ Derangula Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Gunji Anil

Sri M. Siva Gangadhar, Vs Sri. M. Raghavendra

Chelluri Kranthi Priyadarshini alias Kranthi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Athkur Sandhya Parameswari Vs Mude Vasu Naik

Vanapalli Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanapalli Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh