Bonthu Alias Banka Bhargavi Priya Vs Banka Sandeep Reddy

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.32 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 withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025, on the file of the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, and to transfer the same to the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, for trial and disposal.

¶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 09.04.2017 in Vijayawada, 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 Guntur, along with her female child aged about six years. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that she filed D.V.C.No.179 of 2025, on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Guntur and C.C.No.2596 of 2023, on the file of learned Special Mobile Court, Guntur and the same are pending for adjudication.

¶7

ii. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, with a view to cause inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition vide F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025, on the file of learned

¶8

2

¶9

Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of marriage, and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, set aside the ex parte order in F.C.O.P. No.1433 of 2025 and restored the case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent represented that they have filed a counter and the same is placed on record. He contended that there are no grounds in the present transfer application seeking transfer of the case, and that the grounds urged by the petitioner are not sufficient to transfer the case from Vijayawada to Guntur, as the distance between the two cities i.e., Vijayawada and Guntur is hardly 35 kms. Therefore, this transfer application is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides.

¶13

Perused the material available on record.

¶14

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 Guntur along with her female child. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband has instituted a petition against the petitioner/wife herein vide F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025, on the file of learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is

¶15

3

¶16

also pending for adjudication. The material on record further discloses that the petitioner filed D.V.C.No.179 of 2025, on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Guntur and C.C.No.2596 of 2023, on the file of learned Special Mobile Court, Guntur and the same are pending for adjudication.

¶17

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.”

¶18

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

¶19

“ 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.”

¶20

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶21

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶22

4

¶23

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. It was admitted by both sides counsel on record that no cases are pending in between both the parties before the Family Court at Guntur. Therefore, in such a case, if F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025 has been transferred to the Family Court at Guntur, certainly, it will cause some hardship to the Respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is desirable to dispense with the personal appearance of the Respondent herein before the Family Court at Guntur except on the days his presence is required before the said Court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025, on the file of learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. 11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025, on the file of learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur. The learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025, to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks

¶24

5

¶25

from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, on 07.05.2026 at 10.30 A.M. The transferee Court i.e., learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.1433 of 2025, as long as his counsel on record 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 required as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur.

¶26

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

¶27

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶28

Date: 02.04.2026 MH/JLSR

¶29

6

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶31

53