Pasupuleti Aiswarya Vs Pasupuleti Bharat Teja

PASUPULETI AISWARYA, W/O PASUPULETI BHARAT TEJA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO.22-885/N, 6TH CROSS, VENKATA RAMANA LAYOUT, UPADHYAYA NAGAR, JEEVAKONA, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO. 22-4-57/M, R.S.COMPOUND ROAD. MANGALAM ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

PASUPULETI BHARAT TEJA, S/o Venkata Kesava Krishna Rao, Aged about 34 years, Occ Employment Abroad, R/o D.No.56-8-9, Vidya Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District-533105.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

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 to pleased to Withdraw and transfer the F.C.O.P. No.349 of 2025 pending on the file of the IX Additional District-Cum-Family Court Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and transfer the same to the Hon'ble Family Court, Tirupathi and to pass..

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

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 to

¶17

stay all the further proceedings in F.C.O.P. No. 349 of 2025 on the file of the IX Additional District -Cum-Family Court Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District pending disposal of the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition and pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.O UDAYA KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶21

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.429 of 2025

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proof of service Memo was before the Registry on 07.03.2026 vide U.S.R.No.29399 of 2026, along with the Postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website and the same is placed on record. As per the Postal Track Consignment Sheet, the registered notice sent to the learned counsel on record appearing for the respondent before the trial Court and the same was duly served on 03.03.2026. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, „service held sufficient‟.

¶26

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.349 of 2025, on the file of the IX Additional District-

¶27

cum-Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Tirupati, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶28

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶29

I. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the

¶30

respondent/husband and their marriage was

¶31

solemnized on 10.03.2023, in the presence of both side

¶32

elders and well-wishers, at Surya Gardens, Rajahmahendravaram, 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 depending upon the mercy of her parents at Tirupati.

¶33

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 F.C.O.P.No.349 of 2025, on the file of the IX Additional District-cum-Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, 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

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 Tirupati, the distance between Tirupati & Rajahmahendravaram is more than 500Kms and therefore, 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 Rajahmahendravaram without any male assistance and that she was constrained to file the present petition against the respondent/husband, seeking for withdrawal of F.C.O.P.No.349 of

¶35

2025, on the file of the IX Additional District-cum-Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Tirupati, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶36

Heard Ms. T. Priyanka, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

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

¶38

Perused the material available on record.

¶39

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 Tirupati. 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.349 of 2025, on the file of the IX Additional District-cum-Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, 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.

¶40

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.”

¶41

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶42

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

¶43

“ 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.”

¶44

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 F.C.O.P.No.349 of 2025, on the file of the IX Additional District-cum-Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Tirupati.

¶45

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶46

In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the F.C.O.P.No.349 of 2025, on the file of the IX Additional District-cumFamily Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Tirupati. The learned IX Additional District-cum-Family Court Judge, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, shall transmit the entire case record in F.C.O.P.No.349 of 2025, to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati, 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.

¶47

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

¶48

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶49

Date: 11.03.2026 CVD

Pasupuleti Aiswarya v. Pasupuleti Bharat Teja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasupuleti Aiswarya v. Pasupuleti Bharat Teja

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

Kondapalli Satish Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs M/s. Monalisa Emplorium

G. Radhya Krishna Murthy Vs G.Subba Rao, Died

N Srinivasa Rao Vs P Chandrasekhariah (Died)

Sri. Valuri Ananda Kumar Vs Smt. Veerabathini @ Valluri Saramba

Y Ram Mohan Vs Nadir Basha