AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER:
The petitioner, Ms. Supraja, has filed the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025 from the file of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli, and transfer the same to the Court of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
The petitioner case is that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 27.07.2020 at Vijayawada as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was an arranged marriage and was performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soon after the marriage, certain disturbances arose in their matrimonial life. The petitioner was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and has since been residing with her family members.
Due to the disputes that arose between the parties, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was taken cognizance by the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, and numbered as D.V.C.No.53 of 2026.
The petitioner also filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which was numbered as F.C.O.P.No.865 of 2025 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. She further lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.100 of 2025 and subsequently numbered as C.C.No.2312 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
While things stood thus, the respondent filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was numbered as H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli. According to the petitioner, the said petition was filed only with an intention to harass her.
6 With the above said facts, the petitioner sought to transfer the case H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025.
Proceedings before this Court:
This Court ordered notice to the respondent. Notice sent to the respondent by registered post through the learned counsel was returned unserved with the postal endorsement to the effect that “addressee left without instructions, door locked, hence returned to address”.
On perusal of the record in H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025, it appears that the respondent himself furnished the said address while instituting the proceedings. However, during the pendency of H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025, he appears to have left the said address without leaving any instructions.
Under Order VI Rule 14-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, once a party furnishes an address for service in the proceedings before the Court, any subsequent change in such address is required to be duly intimated to the Court. In the present case, no material is placed before this Court to show that the respondent had intimated any change of address to the concerned Court.
Submissions of the Petitioner:
Heard Sri Nagasin Kasim, learned counsel representing Sri Srinu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner contends that she has to travel from Vijayawada to Sattenapalli to attend the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025 and that the distance between Vijayawada and Sattenapalli is about 85 kilometres. She further contends that she has no independent source of income and is dependent upon her parents. Therefore, it is difficult for her to travel to Sattenapalli to attend the proceedings. Hence, she filed the present petition seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025 from the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli, and transfer the same to the Courts at Vijayawada.
Discussion:
The filing of H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025 would show that the marital relationship exists between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner has specifically stated that marital discord led her to filing of the aforesaid cases at Vijayawada.
The petitioner states that she is presently residing at Vijayawada with her parents and that she has to travel a distance of about 85 kilometres to attend the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025 at Sattenapalli. She further claims that she is dependent on her parents.
The respondent has not appeared before this Court to deny these averments or to raise any objection to the transfer sought by the petitioner.
In N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the convenience of the wife is to be considered, especially when different cases between the same parties are pending before different Courts, and that it would be appropriate to have all such cases adjudicated at one place.
In the present case, different proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent are already pending before the Courts at Vijayawada. The respondent has to attend the said proceedings at Vijayawada. Whereas, if H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025 is continued at Sattenapalli, the petitioner has to travel to Sattenapalli, to attend for the said case. The witnesses might be common in these cases, and they also have to attend the respective Courts. For their convenience, if the cases are listed in the same Court complex, it would avoid multiple travelling.
It is also to be considered that the distance to travel from Vijayawada to Sattenapalli or from Sattenapalli to Vijayawada is the same even for the respondent. Though the respondent did not make an appearance, relying on the decision in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nigam2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court permitted appearance of parties through video conference, I am of the view that the personal appearance of the respondent can be dispensed with.
With the above discussion, the convenience of the wife and witnesses, coupled with the fact that the respondent has left the address furnished by him without any instructions during the pendency of H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025, and having regard to the pendency of other proceedings between the parties at Vijayawada, this Court is inclined to consider the present petition.
Result:
In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, with the following directions:-
H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025 is hereby withdrawn from the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli, and transfer to the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli, is directed to transmit the entire record in H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2025, duly indexed, to the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, within a reasonable time.
The Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada, upon receipt of the case records, shall renumber the case as per due procedure, after giving due notice to both parties, and proceed in accordance with law.
The Judge, Family Court at Vijayawada, is further directed not to insist on the personal appearance of the respondent-husband on each and every adjournment, unless his presence is required for reconciliation, mediation, recording of evidence, or whenever specifically directed by the Court, subject to his being represented by learned counsel.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition shall stand closed.