Smt. Akula Kanaka Durga, Vs Sri. Akula Veeraju

SMT. AKULA KANAKA DURGA, W/O. VEERAJU, D/O KARRI ATCHIYYA, AGED- 35 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 1ST FLOOR, BRUNDAVAN HEIGHTS, 0PP.S.N.INDOOR BADMINTON STADIUM, PANDT COLONY,VIJAYAWADA-520015.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SRI AKULA VEERAJU, S/o. Veera Venkatarao, Aged- 39 years, OccEmployee, R/o.D.No.1-90, Patharlagadda Village, Karapa Mandal, Kakinada District.

¶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 pass and order or orders to withdraw the case H.M.O.P No.96/2023 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge Kakinada District at Kakinada and transfer the same to the Honble Family Court, Vijayawada, in the interest of justice and pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 to stay all further proceedings in the H.M.O.P No.96/2023 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada District at Kakinada and pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.K B RAMANNA DORA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶21

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.263 of 2025

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, as per the directions of this Court, notice was sent to the counsel for the respondent before the court below. A memo of proof of service was filed before the Registry on 23.10.2025 vide U.S.R.No.12013 of 2025, along with postal acknowledgment, and the same has been placed on record. It shows that notice on the counsel for the respondent on record before the court below was served. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, „service held sufficient‟.

¶26

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 to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2023, on the file of learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Vijayawada, for trial and disposal.

¶27

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶28

i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 24.03.2016 at Kakinada, as per Hindu Marriage customs and rituals. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the

¶29

petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Vijayawada.

¶30

ii. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2023, on the file of the learned IIl Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Vijayawada and Kakinada is more than 200kms and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned IIl Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

Perused the material available on record.

¶33

The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Vijayawada and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2023, on the file of the learned IIl Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶34

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.”

¶35

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

¶36

“ 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.”

¶37

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 rather than the inconvenience of the husband and therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the

¶38

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶39

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶40

request made by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2023, on the file of the learned IIl Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

¶41

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2023, on the file of the learned IIl Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Additional Family Court at Vijayawada. The learned IIl Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2023, to the file of the Additional Family Court at Vijayawada, 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.

¶42

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: 09.04.2026 JLSR

¶45

115

¶46

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶47

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.263 of 2025