Allowed

Shaik Sushma v. Sk. Mohammad Rafi

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2026TRCMP/46/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge transfer petition addresses the wife's plea to transfer a pending family court order (FCO.P.300 of 2023) from Nellore to Tirupati. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the wife's convenience and financial constraints outweigh the husband's inconvenience in matrimonial transfers. The petition was allowed, and the case was transferred to Tirupati.

What did the court decide?

Transferred F.C.O.P.300 of 2023 from Nellore to Tirupi Family Court within two weeks; no order as to costs.

Shaik Sushma Vs Sk. Mohammad Rafi — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.46 of 2026

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

As per the Registry endorsement, registered notice sent by the Registry to the respondent was served. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, ‘service is 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 to transfer the F.C.O.P.No.300 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nellore, to the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati, for trial and disposal.

¶5

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶6

i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 19.05.1996 at PNM Municipal High School, Janda Street, Nellore. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her matrimonial home at Tirupathi along with her two children. The petitioner filed D.V.C.No.75 of 2022 on

¶7

¶8

the file of learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶9

ii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed F.C.O.P.300 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nellore, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 307(3) of Mohammedan Law and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Judge, Family court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nellore, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

Perused the material available on record.

¶12

The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her matrimonial home at Tirupati along with her two children. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a petition against the petitioner/wife vide F.C.O.P.300 of 2023, on the file

¶13

¶14

of learned Judge, Family court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nellore, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 307(3) of Mohammedan Law and the same is pending for adjudication. The material on record further disclosed that the petitioner filed D.V.C.No.75 of 2022 on the file of learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi and the same is pending for adjudication.

¶15

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.”

¶16

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

¶17

“ 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

¶18

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

¶19

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

¶20

¶21

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.”

¶22

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 rather than the inconvenience of the husband and therefore, I am of the considered view that there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.300 of 2023, to the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati.

¶23

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and F.C.O.P.No.300 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nellore is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati. The learned Judge, Family court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nellore, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.300 of 2023, to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Tirupati, 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.

¶24

¶25

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and

¶26

the Interim Order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.

¶27

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶28

Date: 02.04.2026 JLSR/MH

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶33

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.46 of 2026

¶34

Date: 02.04.2026 JLSR/MH

Shaik Sushma v. Sk. Mohammad Rafi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Sushma v. Sk. Mohammad Rafi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goddati Bharath Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Martur Lakshmi Gayathri, Vs Karavadi Venkata Krishnam Raju

The South Central Railway and 2 Others Vs Rayudu China Venkata Rao and Another

Bonthu Alias Banka Bhargavi Priya Vs Banka Sandeep Reddy

Thoka Nagaiah alias Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Pyare Jan & 2 Others Vs D.Satyanarayana & 25 Ors.