Abburi Pushpa Leela v. Abburi Rambabu

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Feb 2026TRCMP/413/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer petition Section 24 CPC matrimonial matter; wife's convenience paramount; divorce petition F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 transferred from Family Court Vijayawada to Senior Civil Judge Court Sattenapalli; restitution of conjugal rights petition F.C.O.P.No.118 of 2025 pending at Sattenapalli; Hindu Marriage Act 1955 Section 13(1)(ia)(ib); Geeta Heera (2000) 10 SCC 304; N.C.V. Aishwarya 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627; ex parte disposal, service held sufficient.

What did the court decide?

F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 withdrawn from the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli; record to be transmitted, duly indexed, preferably within two weeks; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions and interim orders, if any, stand closed. ¶¶32

Abburi Pushpa Leela Vs Abburi Rambabu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 (divorce petition) pending before the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, ought to be withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli for the convenience of the petitioner/wife.

¶¶16

Court's answer

In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration rather than the inconvenience caused to the husband, and there are justifiable grounds to allow the petitioner/wife's request for transfer.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

The material on record shows the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents' house in Sattenapalli while the respondent/husband is already attending proceedings before the Court at Sattenapalli, supporting the transfer request.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed; F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 stands withdrawn from the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 CPC filed by the wife seeking withdrawal of her husband's divorce petition F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 (under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) from the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and its transfer to the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli, where the wife resides with her parents and where her own petition F.C.O.P.No.118 of 2025 for restitution of conjugal rights is pending, was allowed. Relying on Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304, and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, the Court held that in matrimonial proceedings the convenience of the wife must be preferred over the inconvenience caused to the husband, and directed transmission of the entire case record to the transferee court, duly indexed, preferably within two weeks, with no order as to costs.

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.413 of 2025

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it is noticed that as per the Registry endorsement, notice sent to the respondent was duly served. 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 F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and transfer the same to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli, 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 10.02.2012, in the presence of both side elders and well-wishers, at Lagadapadu Village, Pedakorapadu Mandal, Guntur District, 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

¶7

¶8

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.413 of 2025

¶9

depending upon the mercy of her parents at Sattenapalli Town.

¶10

II. The petitioner/wife pleaded that she filed a petition against the respondent/husband herein vide F.C.O.P.No.118 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli, under Order VI Rule 15(4) of C.P.C., seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the same is pending for adjudication.

¶11

III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that with a view to

¶12

cause inconvenience and to harass her, the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition vide F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner being a woman, has been residing separately and depending upon the mercy of her parents at Sattenapalli, and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel to attend the divorce case proceedings filed by the respondent/husband before the Court at Vijayawada without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband,

¶14

¶15

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.413 of 2025

¶16

seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶17

Heard Mr. A. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

Though notice has been served, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, „service is held sufficient‟.

¶19

Perused the material available on record.

¶20

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 Sattenapalli, and she filed a petition against the respondent/husband viz., F.C.O.P.No.118 of 2025 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the same is pending for adjudication and the respondent/husband is also attending the case proceedings before the Court at Sattenapalli. The material on record further reveals that the respondent/husband herein had filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for adjudication.

¶21

¶22

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.413 of 2025

¶23

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.”

¶24

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

¶25

“ 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.”

¶26

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

¶27

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶28

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶29

¶30

VGKR, J Tr.C.M.P.No.413 of 2025

¶31

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 F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli.

¶32

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli. The learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District, shall transmit the entire case record in F.C.O.P.No.141 of 2025, to the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge Court at Sattenapalli, 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.

¶33

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

¶34

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶35

Date: 27.02.2026 CVD

Abburi Pushpa Leela v. Abburi Rambabu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abburi Pushpa Leela v. Abburi Rambabu

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

Smt. Penugonda Vineela, Vs Sri Erukala Anjaneya

Smt. Keerthi Priya Yapara alias Keerthi Priya Medi Vs Suneel Shekar Yapara

Shaik Moulali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chelluri Kranthi Priyadarshini alias Kranthi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jallela Indira Priyadarshini, Vs Yalla Suresh Kumar

Smt M Sunandini Vs T Anilkumar Reddy