(Prayer: 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 the case HMOP No.123 of 2024 on the file of the Honble Senior Civil Judge Court, at Addanki, Prakasham district and transfer to the court of Honble Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Bapatla to try along with HMOP.No. 30 of 2025 in the interest of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 in HMOP No.123 of 2024 on the file of the Honble Senior Civil Judge Court, at Addanki, Prakasham district and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

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 May be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the main prayer by correcting the typographical mistake in main prayer as it is typed as transfer to the court of Honble Senior Civil Judge, at Addanki instead of transfer to the court of Honble Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Bapatia to try along with HMOP. No. 30 of 2025 and pass)

1. 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.123 of 2024, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, to the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, 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 06.08.2022 at Annavaram Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, East Godavari District, as per Hindu Marriage customs and rituals and the respondent is a distant relative to the petitioner prior to their marriage. After marriage, they lived happily at Pedanandipadu Village in Guntur District for a period of 2 years, and they were blessed with a male child on 30.10.2023. Thereafter, respondent/husband went to his native place on 03.11.2023 and did not return to matrimonial house. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife is residing separately along with her child aged about 2 ½ years at her parents‟ house at Pedanandipadu Village, Baptla.

               ii. The petitioner submits that she has lodged a complaint before the Pedanandipadu Police Station. Thereafter, the respondent approached the petitioner, stating that he would take her back and lead marital life with her, and demanded dowry of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Having no other alternative, the petitioner gave a report to the Police, Pedanandipadu. Based on the said report, a case was registered in Crime No. 132 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the same is pending for investigation.

               iii. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent/husband, to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, filed H.M.O.P.No.123 of 2024, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia)(iii)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with false averments. She further pleaded that she filed H,M.O.P.No.30 of 2025, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla seeking restitution of conjugal rights and D.V.C.No.7 of 2025 and M.C.No.22 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, and the said cases are pending for adjudication. The petitioner further pleaded that it is very difficult for the petitioner/wife to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, on each and every adjournment without any male assistance, and that she is constrained to file this petition.

3. The respondent has filed his counter-affidavit by denying the material allegations leveled in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner and contended that there are no merits in the petition and requested to dismiss the same.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Perused the material available on record.

6. The material on record prima facie shows that, in view of the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the petitioner/wife is residing separately at her parents‟ house at Pedanandipadu Village and Mandal, Bapatla, along with her daughter aged about 2 ½ years and depending upon the mercy of her parents. The material on record further discloses that the respondent/husband filed a H.M.O.P.No.123 of 2024, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) (iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P.No.30 of 2025 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also filed D.V.C.No.7 of 2025 and M.C.No.22 of 2025 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, and the said cases are also pending for adjudication.

7. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA ((2000) 10 SCC 304), 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 Sha (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627) 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 counsels on record 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.123 of 2024, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki to the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

10. In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, and H.M.O.P.No.123 of 2024, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.123 of 2024 forthwith, to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla on 30.07.2026 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.