Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sugnanam Kalpana Mary vs Sugnanam Raghavendra Rao on 18 June, 2025
APHC010185972025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 131/2025
Between:
Sugnanam Kalpana Mary ...PETITIONER
AND
Sugnanam Raghavendra Rao ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH VENKAT RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Ch.Venkat Raman,
learned counsel for the petitioner has represented that the proof of service
memo dated 16.06.2025, along with the postal track consignment sheet is
filed before the Registry and the same is placed on the record. As per the
track consignment sheet, the registered notice sent to the respondent was
served on him on 05.05.2025. Therefore, service held sufficient. None
appeared for the respondent.
2. The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1780 of 2023,
on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum Family Court,
Vijayawada and transfer the same to the X Additional District and Sessions
Judge, West Godavari District at Narasapur.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their
marriage has been performed at Palakollu on 30.06.2010 as per
Christian Religious rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial
disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at her
parents’ house at Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District and
depending upon the mercy of her parents. The petitioner pleaded that
she had lodged a complaint before the Palakollu Town Police Station
under section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act vide Cr.No.127 of 2024 and the same is pending forinvestigation. The petitioner further pleaded that she had filed a
Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.18 of 2024 and a Domestic Violence
Case vide D.V.C.(SR).No.1418 of 2024, on the file of the Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge
Court, Palakol and the respondent/husband is attending the Court
proceedings in the aforesaid cases before the competent Court at
Palakol. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to
cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed
F.C.O.P.No.1780 of 2023, on the file of the IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge-Cum Family Court, Vijayawada, under Section
10(1)(ix)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage.
II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner
being a woman, depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very
difficult for her to travel at a distance of more than 150 Kms from
Palakol, West Godavari District to Vijayawada, Krishna District without
any male support and that she was constrained to file the present
petition against the respondent/husband seeking to withdraw
F.C.O.P.No.1780 of 2023, on the file of the IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge-Cum Family Court, Vijayawada and transfer the same
to the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District
at Narasapur.
4. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though
registered notice sent to the respondent was served on him, none appeared
for the respondent. Therefore, service held sufficient. Perused the material
available on record.
5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the
matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying at
her parents’ house at Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District and she had
filed a 498-A IPC Case against respondent/husband and his family members,
a Maintenance Case vide M.C.No.18 of 2024 and a Domestic Violence Case
vide D.V.C.(SR).No.1418 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Palakol and
the respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid
cases before the competent Court at Palakol. The respondent/husband has
filed F.C.O.P.No.1780 of 2023, on the file of the IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge-Cum Family Court, Vijayawada, under Section 10(1)(ix)(x) of
the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage.
6. 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.”
7. 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
“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.”
8. 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, this Court is of the
considered view that there are grounds to consider the request of the
petitioner/wife to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.1780 of 2023, on the file of the IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum Family Court, Vijayawada and
transfer the same to the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, West
Godavari District at Narasapur.
8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.1780 of
2023, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum Family
Court, Vijayawada, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the X Additional
District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Narasapur. The IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum Family Court, Vijayawada, shall
transmit the case record in F.C.O.P.No.1780 of 2023 to the X Additional
District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Narasapur, 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. 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: 18.06.2025
SRT