K.Vasavi Vs T. Kalyan Venkata Ramana

P KRISHNAPPA, S/O M.PEDDANNA, OCC CULTI V ATION, AGE ABOUT 68 YE A RS, R/O KANCHIBANDARLAPA L LI VILLAGE, SETTIPALLI POS T , GUDUPALLI REVENUE MAND A L, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

GANDAPPAGARI P EDDANNADIED, (DIED).

¶13

VENKATAMMA, W / O GANDAPPAGARI PEDDANNA, A GE ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O KAN C HIBANDARLAPALLI VILLAGE, SET T IPALLI POST, GUDUPALLI REVENUE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRI C T.

¶14

SREENIVASULU, S /O GANDAPPAGARI PEDDANNA, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O K ANCHIBANDARLAPALLI VILLAG E , SETTIPALLI POST, GUDUPALLI REVENUE MANDAL, CHITTOOR D ISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Appeal under secti o n ___________ against ordersmay be pleased to allow the appeal by setti n g aside the judgment and decree d a ted 10-05-2024 made in AS.No.9 of 20 2 3, on the file of the Civil Judge ( S enior Division), Palamaner, camp at Kupparm, confirming the judgment and d ecree dated 3101-2023, passed in OS. N o.140 of 2009, on the file of the Prin c ipal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam and c o nsequently decree the suit O.S.No.140 of 2009, in favour of the appellant/pl a intiff as prayed for and pass such

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 105 days in filing the second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10-05-2024, passed in AS.No.9 of 2023, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palamaner, camp at Kupparm, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31-01-2023, passed in OS.No.140 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, and pass such

¶19

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶20

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 may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of decree in AS.No.9 of 2023, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palamaner, camp at Kupparm, and pass such

¶21

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶22

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 may be pleased to grant interim injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents restraining them from interfering with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the appeal and pass such

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶24

1.CHALLAGALI GOPALARAJU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

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 withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Parchuru, Bapatla District and to transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Sattenapalli, Palnadu District, to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2025, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶30

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶31

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 24.10.2021 at Sri Nagendra Swamy Temple, Nagulapadu, Pedanandipadu Mandal, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents’ house at Krosuru Village, Palnadu District. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, in view of the harassment caused by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint dated 28.06.2025 against the respondent/husband herein, which was registered as F.I.R.No.92 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Section 85 B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Krosuru Police Station, the same is pending for

¶32

investigation and she also filed another case vide H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶33

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Prachur, Bapatla District, under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage, and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner, being a woman, has been residing at her parents’ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Krosuru, Palnadu District and it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Parchuru without any male assistance, and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Parchuru, Bapatla District and to transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Sattenapalli, Palnadu District, to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2025, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

¶36

respondent/husband herein is working as a Software Engineer at Hyderabad and there are no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner, and the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition may be dismissed. He further submitted that in case, if this Court is inclined to transfer the said H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025 from Parchur to Sattenapalli, it would be very difficult for the respondent/husband herein to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Palandu District.

¶37

Heard Mr. T. Ramakoteswara Roa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶38

Perused the material available on record.

¶39

The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing with her parents in Krosuru Village, Palnadu District. She has instituted two (2) cases against the respondent/husband herein i.e. Criminal Case under Section 85 of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Krosuru Police Station, the same is pending for investigation and H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the same is pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband herein is also attending the Restitution Case proceedings before the Court at Sattenapalli. The material on record further reveals that

¶40

the respondent/husband had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Parchuru, Bapatla District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage, and the same is also pending for adjudication, and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶41

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.”

¶42

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

¶43

“ 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.”

¶44

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶45

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶46

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 that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Parchuru, Bapatla District and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. Further, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent/husband herein is a Software Engineer who is currently working at Hyderabad, therefore, it is desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the respondent/husband herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Parchuru, Bapatla District, before the transferee Court, except on the days when his personal appearance is required before the said Court as per law.

¶47

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Parchuru, Bapatla District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. The learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court Parchuru, Bapatla District, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s

¶48

Court Sattenapalli, Palnadu District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Sattenapalli, Palnadu District on 23.02.2026 at 10.30

¶49

A.M. The transferee Court i.e., learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court Sattenapalli, Palnadu District, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.17 of 2025, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when

¶50

re-conciliation proceedings are being taken up or on the day when his crossexamination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal appearance is required as directed by the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court Sattenapalli, Palnadu District. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

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

¶52

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶53

Date: 21.01.2026 CVD/JLSR

K.Vasavi v. T. Kalyan Venkata Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vasavi v. T. Kalyan Venkata Ramana

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

Tanala Satyanarayana Died Vs Tanala Rama Rao Died as per LRs

Alla Yagnika Vs Alla Vinya Kumar

Gummalla Vasantha Kumari alias Kandikatla Vasantha Kumari Vs Gummalla Bulli Swami Sastry

Dumpa Satyanarayana Vs Dumpa Gowri

Duggempudi Satya Veni Vs Duggempudi Veeraiah

Mudiyala @Gade Naga Pavani, @Satya Naga Pavanai Vs Mudiyala Jagadeeshwar Reddy