Alamuri Sree Ramya, Vs S. Rajesh Kumar

¶1

APHC010598792025

¶2

[3397]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 353/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

1.ALAMURI SREE RAMYA,, D/O LATE RAMA RAYUDU, W/O S. RAJESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 3/2076, RAJAREDDY STREET, KADAPA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1.S RAJESH KUMAR, S/o S. Venkataramana, Aged about 36 years. Residing at D.No. 30-363, 2nd Cross, Vijayalakshmi Colony, Santhapeta, Chittoor Town, Mandal and District

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

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 withdraw the H.M.O.P. No. 187 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Chittoor and transfer the same to the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶14

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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in H.M.O.P. No. 187 of 2023 on the file of Hon ’ ble Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Chittoor, pending disposal of the above Transfer CMP IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶15

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 vacate the Interim orders granted on 10-11-2025 in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 and dismiss the main Tr.C.M.P No. 353 of 2025 with Costs and Consequently to retain the said H.M.O.P. No. 187 of 2023 before the Court of Honble Principal Senior Civil Judges Court, Chittoor and pass

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.KALAPALA DOONDI MAHARAJ Counsel for the Respondent:

¶18

1.T DIWAKAR REDDY The Court made the following:

¶19

THE HON ’ BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶20

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.353 of 2025

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

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.187 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Chittoor and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Kadapa, for trail and disposal of the same.

¶23

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶24

I. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 24.02.2023, in the presence of both side elders, at L.B Convention Hall, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents ’ house at Kadapa. The petition/wife pleaded that in view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members, dated 08.10.2023, which was registered as Crime No.397 of 2023, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before the I Town Police Station, Kadapa, after

¶25

completion of investigation, Police laid a charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1748 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, and she also instituted a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.03 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate for Special Mobile Court, Kadapa, the same are pending for adjudication.

¶26

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband filed a case against the petitioner/wife herein vide H.M.O.P.No.187 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Chittoor, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights sand the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶27

III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately in her parents ’ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Kadapa. The distance between Kadapa and Chittoor is more than 150Kms, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the restitution case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband herein, before the Court at Chittoor without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the

¶28

respondent/husband, seeking to withdraw the

¶29

H.M.O.P.No.187 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Chittoor and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Kadapa.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/wife herein filed a Maintenance Case vide F.C.O.P.No.38 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband.

¶31

Heard Mr. Kalapala Doondi Maharaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶32

Perused the material available on record.

¶33

The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents ’ house at Kadapa and she has filed two (02) cases against the respondent/husband herein viz., Criminal Case vide C.C.No.1748 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, and Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.03 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate for Special Mobile Court, Kadapa, the same are pending for adjudication before the competent Courts at Kadapa. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband had filed a petition against the petitioner/wife herein i.e., H.M.O.P.No.187 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Chittoor, under Section 9 of the Hindu

¶34

Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights sand the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that instead of transferring said case i.e. H.M.O.P.No.187 of 2023 from Kadapa to Chittoor, it may be transferred to any other competent Court situated between Chittoor and Kadapa. It is not the case of either of the parties that they are residing at the places between Kadapa and Chittoor. He further contended that the present stage of the aforesaid case is that the enquiry has to be commenced before the trial Court.

¶36

The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA¹ , held as follows:

¶37

“ 9. The cardinal principles 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

¶38

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶39

paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife ’ s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. ”

¶40

On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid case law 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 to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.187 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Chittoor and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

¶41

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.187 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Chittoor, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge ’ s Court, Chittoor, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.187 of 2023 to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five (05) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, on 23.01.2026, at 10.30 a.m. There shall be no order as to costs. As

¶42

a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted

¶43

earlier, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶45

Date: 07.01.2026 NOTE: ISSUE C.C by 08.01.2026 B/o CVD

Alamuri Sree Ramya, v. S. Rajesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alamuri Sree Ramya, v. S. Rajesh Kumar

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

Joga Nagamani Vs Joga Veera Venkata Naga Kanaka Surya Rao

Sati Sridhara Surya Sarvani Vs Sathi Gowtham Reddy

N. Kalavathi, Vs Smt. M. Mallika

D. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs S. Venkata Narayana

Jagileti Aruna Vs Malesetty Praveen Kumar

Palla Lanaya Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh