Tungala Kanaka Durga Bhavani Vs Tungala Sathya Srinivas

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.41 of 2025

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 to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.37 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda to the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for trial and disposal.

¶4

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶5

i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 15.10.2021as per Hindu Marriage customs and rituals. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents’ house at Madurawada, Visakhapatnam.

¶6

ii. The petitioner pleaded that she filed a Maintenance Case and a Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bheemunipatnam, and the same is pending adjudication.

¶7

iii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, filed H.M.O.P.No.37 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner further pleaded the distance between Visakhapatnam and Avanigadda is

¶8

approximately 400 kms and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

¶9

Heard Sri K. Sai Sree Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶10

The learned counsel for the respondent argued that there are no merits in the transfer petition and that the transfer petition may be dismissed. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner/wife filed two cases i.e., Maintenance Case and Domestic Violence Case vide D.V.C.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judgecum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bheemunipatnam, and the same are pending adjudication. In the meanwhile, the husband/respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.37 of 2024 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner herein is residing at Madhurawada in her parents’ house, depending upon the mercy of her parents and the distance between Madhurawada and Avanigadda is more than 400 kms and it is difficult for the petitioner to travel to Avanigadda without any male assistance.

¶11

The material on record prima facie reveals that the two cases filed by the wife/petitioner herein are pending against the husband, before the competent Courts at Bheemunipatnam, in Visakahpatnam District and the husband filed H.M.O.P.No.37 of 2024 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior

¶12

Division), Avanigadda, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The ground urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the said case is that she is presently residing at Madhurawada, which is situated more than 400 kilometres away from Avanigadda and she is depending upon the mercy of her parents at Visakhapatnam.

¶13

The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha¹ held as follows:

¶14

“ 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.”

¶15

On considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered view that, in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration rather than the inconvenience caused to the husband. Furthermore, the petitioner/ wife has been residing at Madhurawada in her parents’ house and the two cases filed by the wife are pending against

¶16

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶17

the husband for adjudication before the competent Courts at Bheemunipatnam in Visakhapatnam District. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is allowed.

¶18

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and H.M.O.P.No.37 of 2024 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.37 of 2024, to the file of the Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnamat 10:30 a.m. on 30.07.2026.There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is hereby instructed to transmit the copy of this order to the concerned Courts forthwith.

¶19

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

¶20

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Date: 15.06.2026

JLSR

92

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO