Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Somisetty Dhanasai Pravallika, vs Somisetty Venkatasathyanarayana, on 27 June, 2025
APHC010156892025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 111/2025
Between:
Somisetty Dhanasai Pravallika, ...PETITIONER
AND
Somisetty Venkatasathyanarayana ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PRATHIWADA VARUN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. YELURI NAGADEEP
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
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 for
withdrawal of O.P.No.82 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,
Kandukur, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Senior Civil Judge,
Tenali, Guntur District, for trial, 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 the
marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on
12.08.2021, at Javvaji Bala Anjaneyuulu and Smt. Vijayalakshmi A/c
Function Hall, Boss Road, Tenali, Guntur District, as per the Hindu
Rites and Caste Customs. During their wedlock period, the
petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband were blessed with a male
child. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the
spouses, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her
male child aged about five (5) years at her parents’ house at Tenali. In
view of the harassment made by the respondent/husband, the
petitioner/wife lodged a complaint against the respondent/husband for
the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, before I Town Police Station, Tenali.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed by the
Police and it has been numbered as C.C.No.381 of 2023 on the file of
the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, and she also
filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.18 of 2024 on the file of the I
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, under Section 125
of Cr.P.C, seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent/husband
and the said two (2) cases are pending for adjudication.
II. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that to cause unnecessary
inconvenience to her, the respondent/husband had filed O.P.No.82 of
2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam District,
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for
dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for
adjudication.
III. The petitioner/wife further pleaded that, she being a woman, residing
separately along with her child aged about five (5) years at her parents’
house at Tenali, it is very difficult for her to travel which is situated at a
distance of more than 180Kms from Tenali to Kandukur to attend the
divorce case proceedings on each and every adjournment without any
male assistance and that she is constrained to file the present petition
seeking for withdrawal of O.P.No.82 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam District and transfer the same to the Senior
Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District.
3. The respondent/husband filed his counter-affidavit and prayed that
there are no valid grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife
and the petitioner has mentioned false averments in the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are no
merits in the present petition filed by the petitioner/wife and the present
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition may be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the
matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner/wife has been
residing separately along with her child aged about five (5) years at her
parents’ house at Tenali, Guntur District and she had filed two (2) cases
against the respondent/husband herein i.e., C.C.No.381 of 2023 on the file of
the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, and Maintenance
Case vide M.C.No.18 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Tenali and the said two (2) are pending for adjudication before
the competent Courts at Tenali. The material on record further reveals that the
respondent/husband has also instituted a case against the petitioner/wife
herein i.e., O.P.No.82 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur,
Prakasam District, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, seeking for dissolution of the marriage and the same is also pending for
adjudication.
8. 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
1(2000) 10 SCC 304
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.”
9. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. AISHWARYA VS A.S. SARAVANA
KARTHIK SHA2, held as follows:
“9. The cardinal principles 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.”
10. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and in view of the ratio laid down by the aforesaid
case laws and on considering the facts and circumstances of the present case
that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken
into consideration 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 O.P.No.82 of
2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam District and
transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District.
2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
11. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and
the O.P.No.82 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur,
Prakasam District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. The Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur,
Prakasam District, shall transmit the case record in O.P.No.82 of 2024, to the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, duly indexed as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to appear
before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, on 04.08.2025,
at 10.30 a.m. 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: 27.06.2025
CVD