Kandula Harika Vs Ramanolla Uma Shankar

KANDULA HARIK A , W/O UMA SHANKAR, AGED AB O UT 30 YEARS R/O RRW 507, S RI LAKSHMI ENCLAVE, RAMAKR I SHNAPURAM, BESIDE SINGH N A GAR FLYOVER, VIJAYAWADA- 520 0 03.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

RAMANOLLA UM A SHANKAR, S/o Srinivasa Rao, a ged about 33 years, R/o D.No.6/117, Samatha Nagar, Nuzvid Town, Eluru District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition Under Sect i on 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in th e circumstances stated in the affidavit file d therewith, the High Court may be pl e ased topleased to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.144/2025 pending on the file of th e court of Senior Civil Judge at Nuzvidu and transfer the same to the F amily Court at Vijayawada, in the intere s t of justice and pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu m stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m ay be pleased Pleased to grant stay o f all further proceedings in H.M. O .P.No.144/2025 pending on the file of t h e court of Senior Civil Judge at N uzvidu pending disposal of the above Tr. C .M.P. in the interest of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶20

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri Sivalenka Rama Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had filed proof of service Memo before the Registry on 20.01.2026 vide U.S.R.No.5282 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 respondent and the same was served on 01.01.2026. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’.

¶24

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.144 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzividu, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶25

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶26

I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 21.05.2022, in the presence of both side elders and well-wishers, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Thereafter, due to the matrimonial disputes between the

¶27

spouses; the petitioner/wife has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Vijayawada.

¶28

II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzividu, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶29

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 Vijayawada, Krishna 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 Nuzividu 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.144 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzividu, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶30

Heard Mr. Sri Sivalenka Rama Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

The registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on 01.01.2026. Though notice has been served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service is held sufficient’.

¶32

Perused the material available on record.

¶33

The material on record prima facie goes to shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, the petitioner/wife herein has been residing separately in her parents’ house and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Vijayawada. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzividu, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶34

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.”

¶35

The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana

¶36

Karthik Sha² held as follows:

¶37

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶38

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶39

“ 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.”

¶40

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 consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzividu, and transfer the same to the file of the Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶41

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzividu, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzividu, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2025, to

¶42

the file of the Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna 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.

¶43

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

¶44

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶45

Date: 21.01.2026 CVD/JLSR

Kandula Harika v. Ramanolla Uma Shankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandula Harika v. Ramanolla Uma Shankar

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