Andhra Pradesh High Court

Andhra Pradesh High Court: While hearing a transfer civil miscellaneous petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Bandaru Shyamsunder, J., acknowledged the inconvenience faced by the petitioner-wife in order to put forth her contentions before the trial court for the divorce proceedings initiated in respondent-husband’s place of residence and transferred the petition, providing her relief.


The petition was filed by the wife seeking transfer from Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur District, to Senior Civil Judge Court, Krishna Judicial District, on the ground that she being a woman and having no source of income, found it difficult to travel from her parents’ village to the husband’s village to put forth her contentions for the divorce proceedings that were going on, at the respondent’s place of residence.

Additionally, wife has also filed FIR for offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 along with a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the husband, whereas the husband has filed ‘Hindu Marriage Original Petition’ under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on false grounds. These proceedings were going on, in her parent’s place of residence where she was currently residing. Therefore, transfer of the divorce proceeding to wife’s current place of residence would make things convenient for her.


The Court opined that in matrimonial proceedings, “the economic condition and status of the parties and the convenience of the wife has to be considered than inconvenience of the husband”.

The Court acknowledged the inconveniences faced by the wife and held the grounds on which the transfer was sought, legitimate.

Allowing the petition, the Court withdrew the petition from the husband’s place of residence and transferred it to the wife’s place. It also directed the Senior Civil Judge Court to transmit the case records duly indexed as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two weeks and both the parties to be present before the court on the due date.

[Vajrala v. Vajrala Sai Nath Reddy, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 1528, order dated 16-04-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Akula Vamsi Krishna, Advocate

For the Respondent: In absentia

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE

penal code, 1860

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE

Code of Criminal Procedure

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.