(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 H.M.O.P. No. 46/2025 on the file the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur and Transfer on to the file of the court of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court Kandukur, Prakasam District for disposal of the case on merit
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 stay all further proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 46/2025 on the file the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool district pending disposal of Tr.CMP
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 vacate the interim stay granted in I.A.No.1/2026 in TrCMP No. 20/2026 dt. 29.01.2026 and dismiss the above TRCMP and grant such other relief(s) as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
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 transfer HMOP. No.77/2026 from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur to be tried along with w HMOP.No.46/2025 on its file and grant
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
Common Order
Introductory:
1. Aravapalli Manikanta Gupta and Aravapalli Hima Bindu are man and wife. They are parties to the present proceedings.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the “husband” and “wife”.
3. Husband filed H.M.O.P.No.46 of 2025 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur, with a prayer of restitution of conjugal rights, invoking Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. Wife filed H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2026 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kandukur, with a prayer for dissolution of marriage and grant of divorce.
5. Wife moved Tr.C.M.P.No.20 of 2026 for withdrawal and transfer of H.M.O.P.No.46 of 2025 filed by her husband from the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Atmakur to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur.
6. Husband moved Tr.C.M.P.No.191 of 2026 with a prayer for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2026 filed by the wife from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur.
7. Both the petitions are heard together.
Grounds urged by the wife:
8 (i). Due to matrimonial disputes, she is staying with her parents at Kandukur.
(ii). It will be difficult for her to come to Atmakur, Nandyal District, to attend the case in view of financial and physical constraints and she being a woman without support.
(iii). She has a daughter living with her and both are dependents.
Grounds urged by the Husband:
9 (i). He has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights.
(ii). His wife filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class (Additional Munsif Magistrate), Kandukur.
(iii). His wife filed M.C.No.5 of 2026 on the file of the same Court.
(iv). His wife has filed H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2026 for divorce.
(v). Three cases at Kandukur are aimed for harassing him.
(vi). It is difficult for him to travel.
(vii). In case of he is succeeding in the restitution of conjugal rights, his wife has to come and stay with him and she cannot continue at Kandukur. Therefore, she can be asked to continue her litigations at Atmakur.
(viii). Distance between Atmakur and Kandukur is 210 km. There are direct buses to Ongole from Kandukur, which is at distance for 40 km and from Ongole there are direct buses to Atmakur. So the wife can conveniently travel from Kandukur to Atmakur via Ongole.
(ix). The Husband has to travel to Srisailam and from there to Kandukur, whereas there are no direct buses from Srisailam to Kandukur.
10. Arguments on behalf of the husband are that the distance between Atmakur and Markapur is 95 km and the distance between Kandukur and Markapur is 90 km. Therefore, the matters can be transferred to Markapur.
11. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
12. Now the points that arise for consideration in these petitions are:
1) Whether the case filed by the husband in H.M.O.P.No.46 of 2025 can be transferred from Atmakur to Kandkukur or H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2026 can be transferred from Kandukur to Atmakur?
2) What is the result of Tr.C.M.P.No.20 of 2026?
3) What is the result of Tr.C.M.P.No.191 of 2026?
Point No.1:
13. The argument of the husband that his wife can travel to Ongole and from Ongole she can travel to Atmakur, whereas in his case, he has to travel to Srisailam and from Srisailam to Kandukur. This logic is not understandable. When his wife can travel from Kandukur to Ongole and from Ongole to Atmakur, why cannot husband travel to Ongole and from there to Kandukur, is a question for which there is no convincing answer. The route can be the same either for the wife or husband. If one can travel on the said route, the other can also travel on the same route.
14. The argument of the husband regarding inconvenience for travel is neither logical nor convincing. If one route is convenient to one party, the same route can be convenient to the other party as well. The wife is living with her parents along with her daughter. She is prosecuting maintenance case and D.V.C. case at Kandukur. Among the four cases between the parties, three are at Kandukur and only one case is at Atmakur.
15. Transferring all the cases to a Court at Markapur, which has neither inherent nor any kind of jurisdiction, merely because it is in the middle, is not of any inconvenience to any of the ends and to the witnesses who have to attend. The attempt of the husband seeking transfer to the Court at Markapur is found to be not convincing when the same is seen in the factual scenario and the pendency of the other litigation between the parties.
16. The legal position as to considering the forum convenience in matrimonial litigations has been addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following judgments. The relevant observations are as follows:
(i). In Geetha Heera vs. Harish Chander Heera ((2000) 10 SCC 304) held 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”.
(ii). In N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627) at para No.9:
"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."
17. Upon considering the factual matrix of the present case, the pendency of the litigations and the precedential guidance covered by the judgments mentioned above and upon applying the test of forum convenience, this Court finds that the prayer of the husband for transfer of the case filed by the wife does not deserve positive consideration, whereas prayer of the wife for transfer of the case filed by the husband in H.M.O.P.No.46 of 2025 deserves positive consideration.
18. Consequently, Tr.C.M.P.No.20 of 2026 filed by wife is fit to be allowed and Tr.C.M.P.No.191 of 2026 filed by the husband is fit to be dismissed. Point framed is answered accordingly.
Point Nos.2 and 3:
19. In the result,
(1). Tr.C.M.P.No.191 of 2026 filed by the Husband is dismissed.
(2). Tr.C.M.P.No.20 of 2026 file by the Wife is allowed as follows:
(i). The case in H.M.O.P.No.46 of 2025 is withdrawn from the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur and transferred to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur, Prakasam District.
(ii). The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur, is directed to transmit the case in H.M.O.P.No.46 of 2025, duly indexed, forthwith to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur.
(iv). The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur is directed to dispose of the case i.e. H.M.O.P.No.46 of 2025, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year, on receipt and after renumbering as per law, by giving fair opportunity to both parties, after exhausting the efforts for conciliation, if any, between the parties.
(v). The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur is directed not to insist upon the presence of the husband for all the adjournments, unless it is necessary for the purpose of conciliation and the evidence of his side, if his counsel is ready and cooperate with the Court for the progress of the matter.
(vi). Both parties are directed to cooperate with the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukur for disposal of the case as early as possible.
(3). There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The Interim Order granted, if any, shall stand vacated.
