AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER:
Ravuri Anuja @ Bandaru Anuja, has filed this Petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short, referred as ‘the Code’), seeking the relief to withdraw H.M.O.P. No.39 of 2025 from the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam and transfer the same to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Razole.
Petitioner’s case:
Petitioner asserts that her marriage with the respondent, Ravuri Bala Sai Kesava, was performed as per Hindu rites and customs on 09.06.2023 at Lakkavaram Village, Malkipuram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. The marriage was consummated. They led happy marital life for some time. However, due to this alleged attitude of respondent, marital life was disturbing. She had to face physical assaults over her. Due to his harassment, she had delivered a premature baby. The baby could only survived for few minutes and later could not survive. Due to these activities of the respondent, she underwent with psychological trauma. Even then, she joined the respondent and led marital life till August, 2024. During her marital life in this period, she had been subjected to harassment and cruelty not only by the respondent but her in-laws too. As such, she was forced to leave matrimonial home and started staying with her parents at Razole. Despite she intends to continue the marital life with the respondent and as such she filed H.M.O.P. No.57 of 2025 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Razole for restitution of conjugal rights. Whereas, to her surprise, she came to know that the respondent filed H.M.O.P. No.39 of 2025 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Machilipatnam for dissolution of marriage. She has lot of love and affection for the respondent and she wishes to continue the marital life. The petition filed by the respondent is with false allegations. As she is dependent on her parents to attend the Courts at Machilipatnam, travelling from Razole is getting difficult for her and also she claims that it is not safe for her to travel all the way to attend the said Court. The distance is also 216 K.Ms. which involves multiple modes of transport, as there is no direct connectivity and also she has no male support to assist. Under these circumstances, she filed the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P. No.39 of 2025 from the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam and transfer the same to the Court of Civil (Senior Division), Razole.
Proceedings before this Court:
This Court has ordered notice to the respondent. Notice was served to the respondent. Despite of sufficient mode of service to the respondent, he did not choose to appear before this Court.
Submissions of the petitioner:
Heard Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marital life of the petitioner and respondent was not amicable. She was forced to leave matrimonial home after loss of premature baby and harassment by the respondent and her in-laws. From the month of August, 2024, she is living with her parents at Razole. Despite of all these differences, the petitioner intends to continue marital life with the respondent, she filed Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, as the respondent is willfully avoiding to lead marital life with her. While the same is pending, the respondent has filed a Petition for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner is unable to attend the Courts at Machilipatnam, which is 216 K.Ms. away from the Courts at Razole and she is under psychological trauma and hence sought to consider the present Petition.
Discussion:
The marital relationship between the petitioner and respondent is evident by filing of different Petitions by both the parties. The respondent, in spite of service of notice, did not choose to appear; as such, there is no resistance to the present Petition from the respondent. The petitioner asserts that she is residing at her parents’ house at Lakkavaram. The marital differences have arisen for various reasons which are enumerated largely in the affidavit. However, this Court is of the view that the said factual aspects have to be decided by the concerned Courts in the course of trial but not relevant to consider at this stage under Section 24 of C.P.C.
In N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha1, the Hon’ble Supreme 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."
In the aforesaid decision, it was held that convenience of the wife has to be considered in matrimonial disputes. The petitioner to support that she is staying at the Courts at Razole has stated in the affidavit the address at Lakkavaram, which was also mentioned by the respondent in H.M.O.P. No.39 of 2025, filed against the petitioner at Machilipatnam. It is prima facie evident that the petitioner is residing at the Courts at Razole along with her parents. Hence, the summons in H.M.O.P. No.39 of 2025 was served to her at Razole. In the interest of justice, when two Petitions for dissolution of marriage and restitution of conjugal rights are pending between the parties, both to be dealt with by one Court. In the present case, the petitioner, filed the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Razole i.e., H.M.O.P. No.57 of 2025. The H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025 filed by the respondent for dissolution of marriage both the petitions become case and counter-case. If dealt with by one Court, it would avoid multiple orders of a conflicting nature.
In the case of Ajay Lawania vs. Shobna Dubey2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Para 4 as follows:
“4.It is well settled that if two petitions are filed under the Act, one under Section 9 and the other under Section 13, then, in order to avoid conflicting decisions, it is expedient that both the cases are heard by the same court. Evidence in the two cases should be recorded one after the other, arguments should be heard separately and thereafter, separate judgments should be delivered on one day.”
The above ruling would suggest that, when two cases under Section 9 and Section 13 are filed by the respective parties, one Court should deal with both the applications. In N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the convenience of the wife is to be considered in matrimonial cases. On application of both the rulings and considering the convenience of the wife, i.e., the petitioner herein, the petition filed by the respondent is to be transferred to the Court where she is residing and also to the Court where the Section 9 application was filed by the petitioner.
In the light of above discussion, I am of the view that the present Petition can be considered taking into consideration convenience of the petitioner and that the respondent, in spite of service of notice did not evince interest to prosecute the case.
Result:
In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed, with the following directions:-
(i). H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025 is hereby withdrawn from the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Divison) at Machilipatnam and transferred to the file of Civil Judge (Senior Divison) at Razole.
(ii). The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam is directed to transmit the entire record in H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2025, duly indexed, to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Divison) at Razole within a reasonable time.
(iii). The learned Civil Judge (Senior Divison) at Razole, upon receipt of the case records, shall renumber the case as per due procedure, after giving notices to both parties, and proceed in accordance with law.
(iv). The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Razole is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in case the respondent seeks to dispense with his presence in day-to-day proceedings, except for reconciliation/mediation/evidence or pursuant to any other specific direction, and also permission to appear through virtual mode.
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. Interim order, granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.