Thallapureddy Hemalatha Alias Mandeddula Hemalatha Vs Mandeddula Lakshmi Venkata Surendra Reddy

THALLAPUREDDY HEMALATHA ALIAS MANDEDDULA HEMALATHA, W/O. MANDEDDULA LAKSHMI VENKATA SURENDRA REDDY, AGED 27 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.3/00, CHINNAVANGALI VILLAGE, CHAGALAMARRI MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

MANDEDDULA LAKSHMI VENKATA SURENDRA REDDY, S/o. Jakyarami Reddy, Aged 33 years, R/o. D.No.17/201, Kalvakatta, Goopavaram Panchayat, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District- 516360.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

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 the H.M.O.P.No.226 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District to the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal Distirct (erstwhile Kurnool District) and to pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶17

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.226 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the transfer petition and to

¶18

pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.N ASWARTHA NARAYANA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶22

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.22 of 2026

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it is noticed that as per the Registry endorsement, notice sent to the respondent was duly served. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’.

¶27

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.226 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶28

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶29

I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 03.04.2024, in the presence of both side elders and well-wishers, at Golden Park (Function Hall), Bollavaram, Proddutur Town, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Thereafter, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the

¶30

mercy of her parents at Chinnavangali Village, Nandyal District.

¶31

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein had filed a petition vide H.M.O.P.No.226 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the same is pending for adjudication.

¶32

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 Chinnavangali Village, Nandyal District, and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel to attend the restitution case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Proddutur 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.226 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶33

Heard Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana, 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

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 in her parents’ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Chinnavangali Village, Nandyal District. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband herein had filed a petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.226 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is 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 paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s

¶39

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶40

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 caused to the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.226 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District.

¶42

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.226 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.226 of 2025, to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Nandyal 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. 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: 09.03.2026 CVD

Thallapureddy Hemalatha Alias Mandeddula Hemalatha v. Mandeddula Lakshmi Venkata Surendra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thallapureddy Hemalatha Alias Mandeddula Hemalatha v. Mandeddula Lakshmi Venkata Surendra 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

Gunji @ Derangula Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Gunji Anil

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

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

Athkur Sandhya Parameswari Vs Mude Vasu Naik

Vanapalli Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarlagadda @ Nimmagadda Anusha Vs Yarlagadda Suresh Babu