Miscellaneous Petition No. 325 of 2025 · High Court · 2025

Today, when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, proof of service Memo has been field before the Registry on 19.11.2025 vide U.S.R.No.133604 of 2025, along with the Postal Track Consignment Sheet downloaded from the Postal Department Website and the same has been placed on record. As per the Postal Track Consignment Sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent and the same was served on him on 13.11.2025. 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 the H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, and transfer the same to the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for trial and disposal. 2

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 29.05.2019, at Railway Kalyana Mandapam at

Samarlakota, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately in her parents‟ house at Samarlakota, Kakinada District along with her two minor children. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, in view of the harassment caused by the respondent/husband, she lodged a complaint dated

03.04.2025 against the respondent/husband herein, which was registered as Crime No. 128 of 2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 85 of the B.N.S. 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and she also filed a case against the respondent/husband, i.e., a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.36 of 2025, on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and the same is pending for adjudication. ii. The petitioner further pleaded respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking for dissolution 3 of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that the distance between Kakinada and Vizianagaram approximately 250 kms, and that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the material available on record.

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 Samarlakota, Kakinada District along with her two minor children and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner/wife vide H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2025, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the same is pending adjudication. 4

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.”

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 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 that, in matrimonial proceedings, convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration rather 1(2000) 10 SCC 304 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 5 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 H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2025, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, to the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District.