Puppala Lakshmi @ T Bharathi, Vs Puppala Ranganath — Domestic Violence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Puppala Lakshmi @ T Bharathi, Vs Puppala Ranganath — Domestic Violence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Transfer petition under Section 24 CPC allowed: F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023 withdrawn from the Family Court, Ananthapuramu and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal; the Family Court, Ananthapuramu directed to transmit the case record expeditiously, preferably within two weeks (transmission direction in ¶27 prints the case as 'F.C.O.P.No.92 of 2023', apparently a typographical slip for No.94); no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions and any interim order stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the wife's petition under Section 24 CPC deserves allowance, i.e., whether F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023 pending before the Family Court, Ananthapuramu should be withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal in view of the petitioner/wife's convenience.

Court's answer

In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration rather than the inconvenience of the husband; applying the ratio of the cited Supreme Court decisions (Geeta Heera and N.C.V. Aishwarya), the court found justifiable grounds to allow the wife's transfer request.

Ratio / Principle

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed; F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023 is withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Ananthapuramu and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the wife allowed. F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023 (husband's divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) pending before the Family Court, Ananthapuramu was withdrawn and transferred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal. The wife resides separately at Nandyal with her two minor children aged about 13 and 10 years; the distance between Ananthapuramu and Nandyal is approximately 200 kms and she had no male assistance to attend every adjournment. Reliance placed on Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304 (transfer petition by wife without sufficient funds may be allowed) and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 (in matrimonial matters, generally the wife's convenience must be looked at while considering transfer). The Family Court, Ananthapuramu was directed to transmit the case record to the transferee court preferably within two weeks; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions and any interim order stood closed. Other related proceedings noted: Crime No.86 of 2023 (Ss. 498-A, 324 r/w 34 IPC), M.C.No.52 of 2023 (S.125 CrPC maintenance), D.V.C. No.18 of 2023 (S.23(2) DV Act) all pending. Notice on the respondent was held sufficient despite non-representation.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.52 of 2026

ORDER:

Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, as per the Registry endorsement notice sent to the respondent was served. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, „service held sufficient‟.

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 F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu and transfer the same to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal, for trial and disposal.

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband, and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Marriage customs and rituals. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Nandyal along with her two minor children aged about 13 years and 10 years.

2

ii. The petitioner submitted that she has filed a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.86 of 2023 under Sections 498-A and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the III Town Police Station, Nandyal. She further submitted that she has filed M.C.No.52 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance. She has also filed D.V.C. No.18 of 2023 under Section 23 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the said cases are pending adjudication.

iii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Ananthapuramu and Nandyal approximately 200kms and it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before thelearned judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the material available on record.

3

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 parents‟ house at Nandyal along with her two minor children aged about 13 years and 10 years. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the same is pending for adjudication. The material on record further discloses that the petitioner has filed a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.86 of 2023 under Sections 498-A and 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the III Town Police Station, Nandyal and she also filed M.C.No.52 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance. She has also filed D.V.C. No.18 of 2023 under Section 23 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the said cases are pending adjudication.

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.”

1 (2000) 10 SCC 304

4

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

Karthik Sha² held as follows:

“ 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.”

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.94 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu.

In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and F.C.O.P.No.94 of 2023, on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal. The learned Judge, Family Court,

2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627

5

Ananthapuramu, shall transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.92 of 2023, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandyal, 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.

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

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

Date: 15.04.2026 JLSR

6

140

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.52 of 2026

Date: 15.04.2026 JLSR