(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 transfer the petition in D.O.P.No.287 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge Rajamahendravaram to the Family Court Judge at Guntur and pass Prayer is amended as per C.O.dt 15/04/2026 in I.A.No.2/2026

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 D.O.P.No.387 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge: Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of the present petition 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 D.O.P. number in the main Tr. C.M.A. Petition, Interlocutory Application, petition and affidavit, as: D.O.P. No.287 of 2025 Instead of D.O.P. No.387 of 20 and pass

IA NO: 3 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 order passed on 16.03.2026 in IA.No.1 of 2026 in Tr.C.M.P.No. 88 of 2026 and dismiss the TRCMP and Pass)

Introductory:

1. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is her husband.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the husband and wife.

3. The husband has filed D.O.P.No.287 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, with a prayer for dissolution of marriage and grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and nullity of marriage in terms of Section 10 (vii) and (x) and Sections 18 and 19 of the Divorce Act, 1869. The wife filed the present petition for withdrawal and transfer of the said case from the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, to the Family Court at Guntur.

Grounds urged by the wife:

4. Due to matrimonial disputes and her harassment, particularly alleging her as a cancer patient etc. she is living with her parents and lodged a report in Old Guntur Police Station.

5. The case in Crime No.331 of 2025 is registered against the husband for the offences punishable under Section 85 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and she has also filed D.O.P.No.287 of 2025, F.C.O.P.(M.C).No.827 of 2025 and F.C.O.P.No.826 of 2025 under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Husband is opposing transfer on the following grounds:

6(i) The allegation as to the matrimonial differences and demand for dowry etc. made in the petition are false.

                  (ii). The wife has initiated criminal proceedings vide C.C.No.331 of 2025, old Guntur  Police Station, F.C.O.P.(M.C).No.827 of 2025 and F.C.O.P.No.826 of 2025 before the Guntur Court, W.P.No.4513 of 2026 before this Court and present transfer petition. All the cases are aimed at harassing the husband.

                  (iii). The power of attorney representing the husband is also aged about ‘65’ years suffered with chronic disease. Therefore, it will be difficult for the husband even for prosecuting the case at Guntur.

7. Facts relevant for appreciating the prayer for transfer are as follows:

                  (i). The petitioner is a woman claiming that she is not having financial and physical support.

                  (ii). There are other litigations between the parties at Guntur.

                  (iii). The respondent / husband is pursing the litigation through his father, GPA and he is claiming that he is staying abroad.

8. 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."

9. Upon considering the facts and circumstances and the precedential guidance, the prayer for transfer is found convincing.

10. In the result, Tr.C.M.P.No.88 of 2026 is allowed as follows:

                  (i). The case in D.O.P.No.287 of 2025 is transferred from the learned Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram to the learned Judge, Family Court at Guntur.

                  (ii). The learned Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram is directed to transmit D.O.P.No.287 of 2025, duly indexed, forthwith to the learned Judge, Family Court at Guntur.

                  (iii). The learned Judge, Family Court at Guntur is directed to dispose of the case i.e. D.O.P.No.287 of 2025, as expeditiously 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.

                  (iv). The learned Judge, Family Court at Guntur is directed not to insist upon the presence of the husband 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.

                  (v). Both parties are directed to cooperate with the learned Judge, Family Court at Guntur for disposal of the case as early as possible.

                  (vi). There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The Interim Order granted, if any, shall stand vacated.