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

THE HON ’ BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.342 of 2025

ORDER:

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, proof of service Memo was before the Registry on 21.01.2026 vide U.S.R.No.5705 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 learned counsel on record appearing for the respondent before the trial Court and the same was served on 02.12.2025. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘ service held sufficient ’ .

¶4

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.146 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta, Guntur District, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶5

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶6

I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 17.02.2024, in the presence of both side elders and

¶7

2

¶8

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.342 of 2025

¶9

well-wishers, at Sri Lakshmipadmavathi Temple, Vykuntapuramu, Tenali, 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 mercy of her parents at Ongole. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that in view of the harassment caused by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband herein, which was registered as Crime No.27 of 2025, for the offence punishable under Section 85(3)A of B.N.S. Act, 2023, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Kothapatnam Police Station, Ongole, the same is pending for investigation and she also filed another petition vide H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the same is pending for adjudication.

¶10

II. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that, with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2025 on the file of the

¶11

3

¶12

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.342 of 2025

¶13

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta, Guntur District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶14

III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Ongole, Prakasam District and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Narasaraopeta without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta, Guntur District, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶15

Heard Mr. Shaik Asif, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

The registered notice sent to the learned counsel on record appearing

¶17

for the respondent before the trial Court and the same was served on

¶18

4

¶19

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.342 of 2025

¶20

02.12.2025. Though notice has been served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘ service is held sufficient ’ .

¶21

Perused the material available on record.

¶22

The material on record prima facie goes to shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents ’ house at Ongole and she has instituted two (2) cases against the respondent/husband i.e. Criminal Case under Section 85(3)A of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the Kothapatnam Police Station Ongole, the same is pending for investigation and H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, 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 Ongole. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband herein also filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta, Guntur District, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶23

5

¶24

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.342 of 2025

¶25

The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER

¶26

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. ”

¶27

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

¶28

“ 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. ”

¶29

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 than that of the inconvenience caused to the husband. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to

¶30

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶31

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶32

6

¶33

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.342 of 2025

¶34

consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta, Guntur District and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶35

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta, Guntur District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopeta, Guntur District, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.146 of 2025, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam 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.

¶36

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

¶37

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶38

Date: 21.01.2026 CVD/JLSR

Mudiyala @Gade Naga Pavani, @Satya Naga Pavanai v. Mudiyala Jagadeeshwar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudiyala @Gade Naga Pavani, @Satya Naga Pavanai v. Mudiyala Jagadeeshwar 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

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

K.Vasavi Vs T. Kalyan Venkata Ramana

Duggempudi Satya Veni Vs Duggempudi Veeraiah