Wife’s Convenience Prevails Over That of Husband In Matrimonial Transfer Pleas: Andhra Pradesh High Court Transfers Divorce Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao has granted a wife’s request to move the divorce proceedings filed by her husband from Repalle in Guntur District to the Family Court at Ongole in Prakasam District, on the view that in matrimonial litigation the wife’s convenience should take precedence. The dispute concerns the husband’s petition seeking dissolution of marriage on allegations including cruelty and desertion, while the wife resides separately at Ongole with their two children. The Court directed transfer of the record within five days and asked the transferee court to conclude the matter within four months, with limited personal appearance for the husband.
The petitioner is the respondent’s legally wedded wife; their marriage was solemnised on 20 February 2011, and they have two children. Owing to matrimonial disputes, the wife has been residing separately with the children at her parents’ home in Ongole, Prakasam District. She also instituted maintenance proceedings before the Family Court at Ongole under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The husband filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage before the court at Repalle, Guntur District, invoking Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The record notes that his chief affidavit was filed and cross-examination had not commenced.
Invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the wife sought transfer of the divorce proceedings to Ongole, stating that the distance between Repalle and Ongole is over 100 km, that she travels without male assistance, and that the children are studying while staying with her. The husband opposed the request, alleging it was intended to delay the divorce proceedings and stating he is a private employee who frequently travels to Hyderabad for work.
The Court observed that “The material on record prima facie goes to show that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both parties, the petitioner/wife has been residing separately along with her two (02) children at Ongole, Prakasam District.” It recorded that “It is also not in dispute that the respondent/husband herein has filed a divorce petition vide H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District… seeking for dissolution of the marriage, the same is also pending for adjudication.” The Court further noted that “It is admitted by both the learned counsel on record that the respondent/husband herein has filed his chief affidavit… and his evidence in cross-examination has not yet commenced before the trial Court.”
Referring to precedent, the Court stated that in Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, it was 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.” The Court also extracted the principle from N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha that “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.”
It further recorded: “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…” and concluded the extract by noting that “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.”
Upon consideration of the submissions, the Court stated: “I am of the considered view that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband.” It added that “there are justifiable grounds to consider the request made by the petitioner/wife, seeking for withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2020… and transfer the same to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District.” The Court further recorded that the personal appearance of the respondent was dispensed with before the transferee Court except when required as per law.
The Court directed that “the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District.” It further directed that “The learned Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District, shall transmit the entire case record in H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2020, to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, duly indexed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five (05) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”
“The learned Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, to dispose of the main case itself within a period of four (04) months from the date of appearance of both parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District on 09.03.2026 at 10.30 A.M. The transferee Court i.e., Judge, Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, is hereby directed not to insist for the personal appearance of the respondent herein i.e., petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2020, as long as his counsel is attending the Court proceedings and representing the case except on the day his cross-examination is required to be recorded or on any other day when his personal appearance is required.”
“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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, Advocate
For the Respondents: G. Arun Showri, Advocate
Case Title: Nallamolu Rajarajeswari v. Nallamolu Mohana Murali
Neutral Citation: APHC010052312025
Case Number: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 36 of 2025
Bench: Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao
