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

¶1

APHC010626332025

¶2

[3397]

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 380/2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

1.GUMMALLA VASANTHA KUMARI ALIAS KANDIKATLA VASANTHA KUMARI, VASANTHA KUMARI, W/O.BUIII SWAMI SASTRY, D/O.VASANTHA RAO, D.NO. 10-53-82, NEHRU NAGAR, RAMNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-530002. ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1.GUMMALLA BULLI SWAMI SASTRY, S/o.late Soloman Raju, Aged 45 years. Private Employee, D.No.2-23-38, MR Nagar, Near Power Sub Station, Undi Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶10

...RESPONDENT

¶11

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 order withdrawal of D.O.P. No. 56 of 2025 from the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and to transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam District and pass s IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶12

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 Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶13

1.PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1.

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

As per the Registry endorsement, notice sent to the respondent and the same was served. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘ service held sufficient ’ .

¶17

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 D.O.P.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶18

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶19

I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 03.06.2009, in the presence of both side elders and well wishers, at Rice Millers Association Building, Town Railway Station Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, as per the Christian Rites and Customs. During their wedlock, the petitioner/wife and respondent/husband were blessed with two (2) children. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses; the petitioner/wife along with her children residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Visakhapatnam.

¶20

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein filed a divorce petition vide D.O.P.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the

¶21

III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, under Section 10(1)(ix)(X) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶22

III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately along with her children and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Viskhapatnam, the distance between Viskhapatnam and Bhimavaram is approximately 250Kms and it is very difficult for her to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings which was filed by the respondent/husband herein before the Court at Bhimavaram without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband herein, seeking for withdrawal of D.O.P.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶23

Heard Mr. P. Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

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

¶25

Perused the material available on record.

¶26

The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her children at her parents ’ house in Visakhapatnam. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband herein filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide D.O.P.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, under Section 10(1)(ix)(X) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶27

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

¶28

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. ”

¶29

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

¶30

“ 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

¶31

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶32

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶33

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. ”

¶34

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 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 for withdrawal of D.O.P.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶35

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the D.O.P.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, shall transmit the case record in D.O.P.No.56 of 2025, to the file of the Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam, 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: 19.01.2026 CVD

Gummalla Vasantha Kumari alias Kandikatla Vasantha Kumari v. Gummalla Bulli Swami Sastry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gummalla Vasantha Kumari alias Kandikatla Vasantha Kumari v. Gummalla Bulli Swami Sastry

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

Kona Bhavana Vs Polepalli Medhara Amruth

Dr Boreddy Ramachandraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Palla Lanaya Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Yogitila @ Yagatala @ Chatty Haritha Nagaveni Vs Sri.Chatty @ C.Girish Kumar

Nimmagadda Venkateswarlu Vs Gadamsetty Nagarjuna

Bathula Prasanth Vs Bathula Lily Grace