Vitta Moulika Vs Vitta Ranjith Kumar — Domestic Violence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Vitta Moulika Vs Vitta Ranjith Kumar — Domestic Violence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Transfer petition under Section 24 CPC allowed: H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025 withdrawn from the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District and transferred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chirala, Prakasam District; record to be transmitted preferably within two weeks; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions and interim orders closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025, pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, ought to be transferred to Chirala in view of the petitioner-wife's convenience, given the approximately 200 km distance and her lack of male assistance.

Court's answer

In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife must be taken into consideration rather than the inconvenience of the husband; following the ratio in Geeta Heera and N.C.V. Aishwarya, the Court found justifiable grounds to consider the wife's transfer request.

Ratio / Principle

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed; H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025 is withdrawn from the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District and transferred to the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chirala, Prakasam District.

Key takeaways

The Eluru court is directed to transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025 to Chirala expeditiously, preferably within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions and interim orders stand closed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer of Proceedings — Section 24 CPC — Matrimonial case — Wife's convenience. A single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the wife's transfer petition seeking removal of H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025 (divorce under S.13(1)(ia)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) from Eluru to Chirala. The wife resided separately at her father's house at Chirala with the minor son; her complaints/proceedings — F.I.R.No.327 of 2024 (S.85 r/w 3(5) BNS, 2023; Ss.3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961), M.C.No.5 of 2025 (S.144 BNSS, 2023 maintenance) and D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 (Ss.12, 18-23 PWDVA, 2005) — were all pending before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, while the husband's divorce suit lay about 200 kms away at Eluru, making attendance on each adjournment difficult without male assistance. 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 matters the wife's convenience prevails over the husband's inconvenience, found justifiable grounds, allowed the petition, withdrew H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025 to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chirala, and directed transmission of the record preferably within two weeks; no costs. Respondent, though served on 05.03.2026, was unrepresented and 'service held sufficient' (paras 26, 36-43).

APHC010706432025

[3397]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 28/2026

Between:

VITTA MOULIKA, W/O. VITTA RANJITH KUMAR, D/O. PERUMALLA BALA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT M.G.C. MARKET, SRI BALAJI PARADISE, RAYAVARAPUPVARI VEEDHI, CHIRALA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER

AND

VITTA RANJITH KUMAR, S/o. V. Sriram Setty, Aged about 44 years, Post Graduate Teacher in Biology. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Near M.R.C. Colony, Pedavegi, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.

...RESPONDENT

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 Transfer HMOP No. 39/2025 from the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, Bapatla District and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 grant interim stay of all proceedings in HMOP No. 39/2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Eluru West Godavari to the Court of the Senior

Civil Judge, Chirala, Bapatla District., pending final disposal of this petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.N RAVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.28 of 2026

ORDER:

Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, proof of service Memo has been field before the Registry on 10.03.2026 vide U.S.R.No.30539 of 2026, along with the Postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website and the same has been placed on record. As per the Postal Track Consignment Sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on 05.03.2026. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’.

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 the H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025, on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chirala, Prakasam District for trial and disposal.

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 18.11.2010 at Vijayawada, Krishna District, as per Hindu Marriage customs and rituals. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing

separately in her father’s house at Chirala along with her minor son. The petitioner further pleaded that she has lodged a complaint vide F.I.R.No.327 of 2024 dated 06.11.2024 under Section 85 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and filed M.C.No.5 of 2025, seeking maintenance under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and she also filed D.V.C. No.5 of 2025 under Sections 12, 18 to 23 of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. All these matters were filed before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, and the same are pending for adjudication.

ii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025, on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Eluru and Chirala is approximately 200 kms and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

Heard Sri B.Surya Chandra, learned counsel representing Sri N. Ravi

Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the material available on record.

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 father’s house at Chirala and depending upon the mercy of her father. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025, on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner also got filed a complaint vide F.I.R.No.327 of 2024 dated 06.11.2024 under Section 85 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and filed M.C.No.5 of 2025, seeking maintenance under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and she also filed D.V.C. No.5 of 2025 under Sections 12, 18 to 23 of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, and the same are pending for adjudication.

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

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

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 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 request made by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025, on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District, to the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chirala, Prakasam District.

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025, on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chirala, Prakasam District. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025, to the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chirala, Prakasam District, 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.

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Date: 18.03.2026 JLSR/MH

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

5

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.28 of 2026

Date: 18.03.2026 JLSR/MH