VALMIKI ARUNA v. BANDUKA KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.63 of 2026 ORDER: 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‟.

2. 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 H.M.O.P.No.316 of 2022, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, to the file of learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajampet, Kadapa District, for trial and disposal.

3. 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 on 04.08.2016 at Sri Cheenakesava Swamy Temple, Kotta Mangampeta Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately at her parents‟ house in Mangampet Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District 4 along with her children. The petitioner/wife filed C.C.No.393 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur, and a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.07 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur, and the same is pending adjudication. ii. The petitioner further pleaded respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed H.M.O.P.316 of 2022, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Ananthapuram, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Ananthapuram, 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. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of

6. the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife 5 has been residing separately at her parents‟ house Mangampet Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District, along with her children. The material on record further discloses the respondent/husband filed a petition against petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.316 of 2022, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Ananthapuram, seeking for 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 disclosed that the petitioner filed C.C.No.393 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur, and a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.07 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur, and the same are pending for adjudication.

7. 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.”

8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha2 held as follows: 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 6 “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.”

9. 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 H.M.O.P.No.316 of 2022, to the file of learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajampet, Kadapa District.

10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and H.M.O.P.No.316 of 2022, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, is hereby 7 withdrawn and transferred to the file of learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajampet, Kadapa District. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.316 of 2022, to the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajampet, Kadapa District, 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. 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: 27.04.2026 LSP 8 46 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.63 of 2026 Date: 27.04.2026 LSP