Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 24 – Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Wife’s Convenience – Paramount Consideration
Where the petitioner/wife sought transfer of H.M.O.P. No.33 of 2024 filed by the respondent/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala to the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam, on the ground of inconvenience and hardship in travelling over 400 kms with a minor child – Held, in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife should ordinarily prevail over that of the husband, as per the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627].
Considering that the petitioner/wife is residing at Visakhapatnam with her six-year-old son and dependent on her parents, and that the husband is employed in the I.T. sector and working from home at Chirala, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the wife – Petition allowed – H.M.O.P. No.33 of 2024 ordered to be withdrawn from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala and transferred to the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam.
Held further: The respondent/husband’s personal attendance before the transferee Court is dispensed with except on dates of reconciliation, cross-examination, or when specifically directed by the Court.
Result: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – No order as to costs.APHC010440682025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3397]
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 272/2025
Between:
Yadlapalli @ Samudram Bhavya ...PETITIONER
AND
Yadlapalli Syam Kumar ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.VURAKARANAM V S SESHA KESAV
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI
The Court made the following:
2025:APHC:44582
ORDER:
The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Chirala to the V Additional District and
Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam.
2. 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 Chirala on 29.04.2018, as
per Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes
between both the parties, the petitioner/wife is staying along with
her son aged about 6 years at her parents’ house at
Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam and depending upon the mercy
of her parents. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the
respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge at Chirala, under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.
II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
petitioner being a woman having a son aged about 6 years,
depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her
to travel at a distance of approximately more than 400 Kms from
Visakhapatnam to Chirala for attending the Court proceedings
2025:APHC:44582
before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Chirala, without any male
support and that she was constrained to file the present petition
against the respondent/husband seeking to transfer
H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at
Chirala to the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-CumJudge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the
respondent/husband is working as an I.T. employee and is currently residing
at Chirala and attending work from home, as such there are no grounds to
allow the petition filed by the petitioner/wife seeking for transfer of the case in
H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024 from the Senior Civil Judge Court at Chirala to the
V Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge, Principal Family Court,
Visakhapatnam and requested to dismiss the present transfer civil
miscellaneous petition.
4. Heard V.S.Sesha Kesav, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the respondent. 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 along with
her son aged about 6 years are staying at her parents’ house at
Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam and depending upon the mercy of her
parents. The respondent/husband had filed H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on the file
2025:APHC:44582
of the Senior Civil Judge at Chirala, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.
6. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana
Karthik Sha1
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.”
7. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
case law 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 transfer H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024, on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge at Chirala to the V Additional District and Sessions JudgeCum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Further, on considering
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the
respondent/husband is working as an I.T. employee and is currently residing
1
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
2025:APHC:44582
at Chirala by attending his work from home, the personal attendance of the
respondent/husband has been dispensed with before the transferee Court,
except on the days when his presence is required before the learned
V Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge, Principal Family Court,
Visakhapatnam.
9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024,
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Chirala, is hereby withdrawn and
transferred to the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge,
Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The Senior Civil Judge at Chirala,
shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024 to the V Additional
District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge, Principal Family Court,
Visakhapatnam, 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 learned V Additional District and
Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam on
03.12.2025 at 10.30 a.m., later the learned V Additional District and Sessions
Judge-Cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is directed not to
insist for the personal appearance of the respondent/husband i.e., the
petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024, as long as his counsel is attending the
Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day when reconciliation proceedings are being taken up or on the day when his crossexamination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal
appearance is required as directed by the V Additional District and Sessions
2025:APHC:44582
Judge-Cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 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: 23.10.2025
Note:
Issue C.C. by 24.10.2025
B/o
SRT
2025:APHC:44582
