Korraee Venkata Lakshmi Korada Rama … vs Korraee Poorna on 14 July, 2025

0
4


Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Korraee Venkata Lakshmi Korada Rama … vs Korraee Poorna on 14 July, 2025

 APHC010189572025
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                         [3397]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                                   PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
                        KRISHNA RAO

                    TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 132/2025

Between:

   1. KORRAEE VENKATA LAKSHMI @ KORADA RAMA LAKSHMI @
      NASARI RAMA LAKSHMI, W/O KORRAEE POORNA, D/O NASARI
      RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O PATHARLAPALLI VILLAGE,
      RANASTHALAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. PH-8247561436.

                                                                ...PETITIONER

                                     AND

   1. KORRAEE POORNA, S/o Adinarayana, aged about 27 years, R/o
      Door. No.6-13/4-16d, RPM School Road, Tailorpet, Vijayawada -
      520001, Ph. No.96765502130

                                                              ...RESPONDENT

      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 topleased
to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.396 of 2025           pending on the file of IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and to transfer the
same to Family Court Srikakulam, Srikakulam District and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

      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
pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the
Petitioner inF.C.O.P.No.396 of 2025 pending on the file of IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and pass
 Counsel for the Petitioner:

  1. P RAJKUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent:

  1.
 The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner/wife 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.396 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer the same to the

Judge, Family Court at Srikakulam, for trial.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and

their marriage was performed on 17.08.2024, in the presence of

the petitioner’s family, friends & and well-wishers at Royal

Banquet Hall, Vijayawada. After that, due to the matrimonial

disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been

residing separately at her parents’ house and depending upon the

mercy of her parents at Srikakulam.

II. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that

to cause inconvenience to the petitioner/wife, the

respondent/husband had filed F.C.O.P.No.396 of 2025 on the file

of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada,

Krishna District, under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is

pending for adjudication.

III. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contended that

the petitioner being a woman, depending upon the mercy of her

parents at Srikakulam, it is very difficult for her to travel to attend

the divorce case proceedings which is situated at a distance of

more than 400 Kms from Srikakulam to Vijayawada, 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.396 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and transfer

the same to the Judge, Family Court at Srikakulam.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Though registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him,

none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, ‘service held sufficient’.

5. Perused the material available on record.

6. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the

matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been

residing separately at her parents’ house at Srikakulam and the

respondent/husband herein had filed F.C.O.P.No.396 of 2025 on the file of the

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, under

Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same is 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:

“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 considered

than that of the inconvenience of 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.396 of 2025

on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada,

1
(2000) 10 SCC 304
2
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
Krishna District and transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court at

Srikakulam.

10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is

allowed and F.C.O.P.No.396 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is hereby withdrawn and

transferred to the Judge, Family Court at Srikakulam. The learned IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, shall

transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.396 of 2025, to the Judge, Family

Court at Srikakulam, 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: 14.07.2025
CVD



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here