Jallela Indira Priyadarshini, Vs Yalla Suresh Kumar

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.05 of 2026

ORDER:

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.305 of 2025, on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶5

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶6

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 18.06.2022, at Priya Function Hall, Kanithi Road, Gajuwaka, Viskhapatnam City, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents‟ house in Gajuwaka. The petitioner/wife pleaded that in view of the harassment caused by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband, dated 28.10.2025, which was registered as F.I.R.No.482 of 2025, for the offence punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023, and

¶7

2

¶8

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.05 of 2026

¶9

Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Gajuwaka Police Station, the same is pending for investigation.

¶10

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent

¶11

/husband herein filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025, on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Gajuwaka, the distance between Gajuwaka & Kakinada is more than 150Kms and it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Court at Kakinada 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.305 of 2025, on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶13

3

¶14

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.05 of 2026

¶15

The respondent filed counter-affidavit by contending that there are no merits in the present petition filed by the petitioner and the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent/husband herein is working as a software engineer and attending his duties by way of work from home at Kakinada, in case, if this Court is inclined to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025, which is pending before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein may be dispensed with before the transferee Court.

¶17

Heard Mr. S. Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sultana Shaik, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶18

7. Perused the material available on record.

¶19

The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents‟ house in Gajuwaka, she has instituted Criminal Case against the respondent/husband, which was registered as F.I.R.No.482 of 2025, for the offence punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Gajuwaka Police Station, the same is pending for investigation.

¶20

4

¶21

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.05 of 2026

¶22

The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025, on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶23

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.”

¶24

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

¶25

“ 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

¶26

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶27

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶28

5

¶29

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.05 of 2026

¶30

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.”

¶31

On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025, on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, since the respondent/husband herein is working as a software engineer and is currently attending his duties by way of work from home at Kakinada, therefore, the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein i.e. petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025,

¶32

on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, has been dispensed with before the transferee Court, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law. 12. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and

¶33

the H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025, on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil

¶34

6

¶35

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.05 of 2026

¶36

Judge, Kakinada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five (05) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, on 06.04.2026 at 10.30 A.M. Later, the transferee Court i.e. learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is hereby directed not to insist upon the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e. petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025, 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 essentially required as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

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

¶38

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶39

Date: 27.02.2026 CVD

Jallela Indira Priyadarshini, v. Yalla Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jallela Indira Priyadarshini, v. Yalla Suresh Kumar

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

Smt. Keerthi Priya Yapara alias Keerthi Priya Medi Vs Suneel Shekar Yapara

Shaik Moulali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Penugonda Vineela, Vs Sri Erukala Anjaneya

Abburi Pushpa Leela Vs Abburi Rambabu

Smt M Sunandini Vs T Anilkumar Reddy

M/s. Anfa Plastics, Vs A.P. State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad