AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „the CPC‟), is filed by Mahimaluri Sumanjali, for the relief of withdrawing H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026 from the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal and transferring the same to the learned Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District.
Notice was served on the Respondent. The Respondent entered appearance through learned counsel and filed his counter.
Brief facts of the case:
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Petitioner asserts that her marriage with the Respondent was solemnized on 08.08.2024 at Nandyal, as per Hindu rites and customs, in the presence of elders and well-wishers. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 gave dowry of Rs.4,00,000/-.
After the marriage, the Petitioner and the Respondent led marital life for about 20 days. On 31.08.2024, disputes arose between them and they started living separately.
The petitioner is residing at Guntur with her parents due to family differences. It is pleaded that the Respondent filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage, which is registered as H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal. The Petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent, which is registered as C.C.No.6724 of 2025 on the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, Guntur District.
It is further pleaded that the Petitioner is dependent upon her parents and that attending the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026 at Nandyal would be difficult for her, as the distance between Guntur and Nandyal is about 282 kilometres, which takes approximately 5 hours and 44 minutes of journey. She would also have to make arrangements for accommodation to attend the Court. Considering the said difficulty, she has filed the present petition seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026.
Case of the respondent:
The Respondent filed counter opposing the relief sought in the petition, stating that the present petition has been filed only to harass the respondent. It is contended that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned her occupation as a private employee and her age as 23 years, whereas she is aged about 27 years. It is further contended that the petitioner is, in fact, working at Chennai in M/s. Coronis Ajuba Solutions, Mettukuppam, Thoraipakkam, OMR, Chennai, and is residing there independently in a paying guest accommodation.
It is further contended that the Petitioner is accustomed to undertaking long-distance travel between Chennai and Guntur without any assistance. Therefore, her contention that she would face difficulty in attending the proceedings at Nandyal is not correct. The Petitioner is a qualified B.Pharmacy graduate and is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. As such, she can bear the expenses towards her travel. It is contended that the alleged distance of about 282 kilometres is not a ground for allowing the present petition.
It is further contended that the Petitioner had chosen to file different cases prior to the filing of H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026. The Respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that she fraudulently obtained his consent for marriage by suppressing her pre-existing illicit relationship.
It is contended that the Nandyal Court is the competent Court and that the Respondent is residing at Nandyal. If the transfer petition is allowed, the respondent would be put to hardship and prejudice. Hence, the respondent sought dismissal of the petition.
Submissions of learned counsels:
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, as per the settled legal position, the convenience of the wife is to be considered. Admittedly, both the parties have been living separately since 31.08.2024 and their marital relationship has been disturbed. The criminal complaint lodged by the Petitioner is registered before the Courts at Guntur, whereas the complaint lodged by the Respondent is pending before the Court at Nandyal. Thus, both parties have initiated legal proceedings against each other.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent has filed an application under the Hindu Marriage Act, namely, H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026. It is submitted that the allegation that the Petitioner is employed is denied. However, travelling to Nandyal from Guntur would be difficult for the Petitioner. Hence, learned counsel sought to allow the petition.
Learned counsel relied on the following rulings:
Radhika v. C. Vinodhan, Tr.C.M.P.No.220 of 2023, order dated 28.04.2023 (Madras High Court);
Tungala Kanaka Durga Bhavani v. Tungala Sathya Srinivas, 2026 (4) ALT 519 (AP); and
Smt. Ekta Dhadich v. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, S.B. Civil Transfer Application No.72 of 2021, decided on 30.09.2021 (Rajasthan High Court).
Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the respondent has aged parents whom he has to support and that it would be difficult for him to travel all the way from Nandyal to Guntur to attend the day-to-day proceedings. Hence, learned counsel sought dismissal of the petition.
Heard from both learned counsels and perused the record.
Discussion:
The factual aspect would show that the marital relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent has been disturbed since 31.08.2024. The Respondent has already initiated proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act by filing H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction in a transfer petition, cannot go into the merits of the case. There are different cases registered against both parties for the respective allegations. The Petitioner and the Respondent have independently lodged complaints, which have been taken cognizance of by the respective Courts. As submitted by the learned counsels, the said criminal proceedings are also under challenge before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and the personal appearance of the parties has been dispensed with.
Coming to the present case, the plea of the Petitioner is that the proceedings pending at Nandyal are required to be transferred to Guntur, as it would be difficult for her to travel to Nandyal.
In the case of Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, because "if a wife does not have sufficient funds to visit the place where her husband files the divorce petition, then the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed."
In the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha2, the Hon‟ble Apex Court 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 before 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 Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."
The aforesaid legal position shows that the convenience of the wife is one of the relevant considerations while considering a transfer petition. However, the difficulty expressed by the Respondent is also a matter for consideration. The Respondent contends that he would have to travel all the way from Nandyal to Guntur and that he would face difficulty in attending the proceedings.
When the case of both the Petitioner and the Respondent is considered, the distance between Nandyal and Guntur is about 282 kilometres for both parties. In matrimonial matters, the physical appearance of the parties may dealt with virtual mode. Such appearance can be dispensed with in appropriate circumstances.
In the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the appearance of the parties through video conference is permissible.
In the case of Bheemisetti Suryanarayana v. Bheemisetti Mrudula Naga Bhavani 4 , the Division Bench of this Court observed that the appearance of the parties in family matters for reconciliation through virtual mode is not permissible. However, there is no reference as to appearance of the parties through virtual mode for other purposes.
In the case of Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nigam5, it is held that virtual appearance as an alternative to physical appearance is permissible. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:
“14.One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if proceedings are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by the wife. The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be appropriate that available technology of videoconferencing is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties. We understand that in every district in the country videoconferencing is now available. In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilised and all the High Courts ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of videoconferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where one of the parties resides outside court's jurisdiction is one of such categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a request for use of videoconferencing, proceedings may be conducted on videoconferencing, obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. In several cases, this Court has directed recording of evidence by videoconferencing [State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 815; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 3 SCC 284 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 705; Budhadev Karmaskar (4) v. State of W.B., (2011) 10 SCC 283 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 285; Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 15 SCC 330 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 473] .
……19. We hope the above arrangement may, to an extent, reduce hardship to the litigants as noted above in the order of this Court dated 9-1-2017 [Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1912 of 2014, order dated 9-1-2017 (SC)] . However, in the present case since the matter is pending in this Court for about three years, we are satisfied that the prayer for transfer may be allowed. Accordingly, we direct that proceedings in Case No. 179A of 2013 under Section 13 of the Act titled Harish Nagam v. Krishna Veni Nagam pending on the file of IInd Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh shall stand transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. If the parties seek mediation, the transferee court may explore the possibility of an amicable settlement through mediation. It will be open to the transferee court to conduct the proceedings or record evidence of the witnesses who are unable to appear in court by way of videoconferencing. Records shall be sent by court where proceedings are pending to the transferee court forthwith.”
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has framed the Rules i.e., „Andhra Pradesh Electronic Communication and Video Conferencing Rules, 2026‟ permitting the use of video conferencing and facilitating the conduct of judicial proceedings through virtual mode.
The aforesaid decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court makes it clear that the convenience of the wife is one of the relevant considerations in matrimonial transfer matters. In the present case, the petitioner claims to be residing at Guntur. However, the respondent disputes the same and contends that the petitioner is actually residing and working at Chennai.
The record shows that C.C.No.6724 of 2025 is pending before the Courts at Guntur. The respondent has also raised an objection that the petitioner is employed and earning. The said aspect is a matter to be considered on the basis of the material placed before the concerned Court. The allegations and counter-allegations of the parties as to age, earning capacity ect., cannot, at this stage, be adjudicated in the present transfer petition.
In view of the legal position, the Transferee Court may consider permitting the appearance of the parties through virtual mode, wherever necessary and appropriate, in accordance with the procedure and conditions prescribed under the said Rules.
With the above facts and legal position and considering the convenience of the Petitioner-wife and balancing the apprehension and difficulty expressed by the Respondent, this Court is inclined to consider the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, subject to the following directions.
Result:
In the result, the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed with the following directions:
H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026 on the file of learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of learned Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District.
The learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal shall transmit the case record in H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026, after duly indexed, to the transferee Court, i.e. learned Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District, as expeditiously as possible.
The transferee Court, i.e. learned Family Court, Guntur-Guntur District, upon receiving the said H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2026, can re-issue a fresh number and proceed as per due procedure of law.
The Family Court, Guntur, shall not insist on the presence of the Respondent for every adjournment, if he is represented through his counsel, except on the dates as and when his presence is required for mediation or reconciliation or evidence or any specific purpose the Court directs.
The Family Court, Guntur, may look into the possibilities of taking the appearance of the respondent through virtual mode, following the due procedure.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.