ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 24 — Matrimonial proceedings — Transfer of FCOP — Convenience of wife — Principles. Petitioner–wife, residing with her parents at Tanuku, sought transfer of husband’s divorce petition (F.C.O.P. No. 454 of 2025, filed under S. 13(1)(ia) HMA before Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada) to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, under S. 24 CPC, pleading financial dependence on parents and difficulty in travelling alone about 130 kms from Tanuku to Vijayawada to attend proceedings. Respondent–husband opposed transfer, contending there were no other cases between the parties at either Vijayawada or Tanuku, and pleading that his aged mother was under medical treatment at Vijayawada; however, he alternatively prayed that, if transfer were allowed, his personal appearance before transferee Court be dispensed with. Held, transfer allowed. In matrimonial matters, general rule is that wife’s convenience prevails over husband’s, having regard to economic soundness, social strata, living conditions and who is providing protective support to the spouse, as reiterated in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, and Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304, particularly where wife lacks means to travel to husband’s chosen forum. Accordingly, F.C.O.P. No. 454 of 2025 on the file of Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada, was withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. Having regard to husband’s circumstances and there being no other cases between the parties, the High Court further directed that personal appearance of husband need not be insisted upon by transferee Court so long as he is represented by counsel, except on dates fixed for reconciliation, his cross-examination, or when specifically directed by the Court. No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions and interim orders stood closed. (Reddy Sharmila v. Garapati Sarath Chandra, Transfer C.M.P. No. 251 of 2025, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.)

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 24 — Matrimonial proceedings — Transfer of FCOP — Convenience of wife — Principles. Petitioner–wife, residing with her parents at Tanuku, sought transfer of husband’s divorce petition (F.C.O.P. No. 454 of 2025, filed under S. 13(1)(ia) HMA before Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada) to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, under S. 24 CPC, pleading financial dependence on parents and difficulty in travelling alone about 130 kms from Tanuku to Vijayawada to attend proceedings. Respondent–husband opposed transfer, contending there were no other cases between the parties at either Vijayawada or Tanuku, and pleading that his aged mother was under medical treatment at Vijayawada; however, he alternatively prayed that, if transfer were allowed, his personal appearance before transferee Court be dispensed with. Held, transfer allowed. In matrimonial matters, general rule is that wife’s convenience prevails over husband’s, having regard to economic soundness, social strata, living conditions and who is providing protective support to the spouse, as reiterated in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, and Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304, particularly where wife lacks means to travel to husband’s chosen forum. Accordingly, F.C.O.P. No. 454 of 2025 on the file of Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada, was withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. Having regard to husband’s circumstances and there being no other cases between the parties, the High Court further directed that personal appearance of husband need not be insisted upon by transferee Court so long as he is represented by counsel, except on dates fixed for reconciliation, his cross-examination, or when specifically directed by the Court. No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions and interim orders stood closed. (Reddy Sharmila v. Garapati Sarath Chandra, Transfer C.M.P. No. 251 of 2025, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.)

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 24 — Matrimonial proceedings — Transfer of FCOP — Convenience of wife — Principles.

Petitioner–wife, residing with her parents at Tanuku, sought transfer of husband’s divorce petition (F.C.O.P. No. 454 of 2025, filed under S. 13(1)(ia) HMA before Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada) to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, under S. 24 CPC, pleading financial dependence on parents and difficulty in travelling alone about 130 kms from Tanuku to Vijayawada to attend proceedings.

Respondent–husband opposed transfer, contending there were no other cases between the parties at either Vijayawada or Tanuku, and pleading that his aged mother was under medical treatment at Vijayawada; however, he alternatively prayed that, if transfer were allowed, his personal appearance before transferee Court be dispensed with.

Held, transfer allowed. In matrimonial matters, general rule is that wife’s convenience prevails over husband’s, having regard to economic soundness, social strata, living conditions and who is providing protective support to the spouse, as reiterated in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, and Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304, particularly where wife lacks means to travel to husband’s chosen forum.

Accordingly, F.C.O.P. No. 454 of 2025 on the file of Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada, was withdrawn and transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. Having regard to husband’s circumstances and there being no other cases between the parties, the High Court further directed that personal appearance of husband need not be insisted upon by transferee Court so long as he is represented by counsel, except on dates fixed for reconciliation, his cross-examination, or when specifically directed by the Court. No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions and interim orders stood closed.

(Reddy Sharmila v. Garapati Sarath Chandra, Transfer C.M.P. No. 251 of 2025, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.)

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Factual Background

Marriage between petitioner–wife and respondent–husband was solemnised on 25.08.2021 at Tanuku as per Hindu rites and customs.
Due to matrimonial disputes, petitioner is living separately at her parental home in Tanuku, West Godavari District, allegedly dependent upon her parents.
Respondent filed F.C.O.P. No. 454 of 2025 before the Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada, under:
- Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and
- Section 7 of the Family Courts Act,
  seeking dissolution of marriage.
Petitioner now seeks transfer of this FCOP from Vijayawada to Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, invoking Section 24 CPC.

2. Petitioner’s Grounds for Transfer

She is a woman living separately at Tanuku, financially dependent on parents.
Distance between Tanuku and Vijayawada is more than 130 km.
Claims it is difficult to commute alone, without male assistance, for every date of hearing.
Alleges divorce petition was filed at Vijayawada to cause inconvenience and harassment.
Seeks transfer in the interest of justice and to avoid irreparable loss and injury.

3. Respondent’s Objections and Alternative Prayer

Contends there are no merits in the transfer petition.
Points out that except F.C.O.P. No. 454 of 2025 at Vijayawada, no other cases between the parties are pending either at Vijayawada or at Tanuku.
Pleads that his mother is aged and under treatment at Vijayawada, implying that shifting the case to Tanuku would inconvenience him.
However, if the Court is inclined to allow transfer, he requests that his personal appearance be dispensed with before the transferee Court, except when legally necessary.

4. Legal Principles Considered

The High Court relies on two key Supreme Court precedents:

Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304
- Where wife lacks sufficient funds to travel to the forum chosen by husband in a matrimonial matter, transfer petitions by wife may be allowed.
N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
- Reiterates cardinal principles under S. 24 CPC: ends of justice should dictate transfer.
- In matrimonial cases, Court must consider:
  - Economic soundness of parties;
  - Social strata and standard of life before and after marriage;
  - Circumstances in which each spouse is eking out livelihood;
  - Under whose protective umbrella the spouse is living.
- Given prevailing socio-economic realities, convenience of wife generally prevails in transfer decisions.

5. Application to Present Case

Petitioner–wife:
- Resides at Tanuku with parents;
- Claims financial dependence;
- Must travel 130+ km to Vijayawada for every hearing.
Respondent–husband:
- Resides at Vijayawada;
- Cites aged mother’s ailments and treatment in Vijayawada.
There is no multiplicity of proceedings in different stations; only the divorce FCOP is pending.

The Court:

Accepts that wife’s financial and logistical difficulty to attend Vijayawada proceedings is real.
Applies the principle that in matrimonial matters, wife’s convenience outweighs husband’s inconvenience, barring exceptional circumstances.
At the same time, it accommodates husband’s concerns by moulding relief:
- Transfer is allowed in favour of the wife;
- Husband’s personal attendance is substantially relaxed, preserving his convenience as far as possible.

6. Directions Issued

Transfer Allowed
- F.C.O.P. No. 454 of 2025 is withdrawn from Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada and transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District, for trial and disposal.
Transmission of Record
- Principal Family Judge, Vijayawada is directed to transmit the case record, duly indexed, to Tanuku Court expeditiously, preferably within one week from receipt of order.
Dispensation of Husband’s Personal Appearance
- Transferee Court (Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku) shall not insist on personal appearance of respondent–husband so long as:
  - His advocate is present and representing him, and
  - Except on:
    - Dates fixed for conciliation/reconciliation;
    - Dates fixed for recording his cross-examination; or
    - Any other date when personal presence is specifically directed by the Tanuku Court.
Costs and Miscellaneous Petitions
- No order as to costs.
- All pending miscellaneous petitions and any interim orders earlier granted stand closed as a consequence.

III. DISPOSAL SUMMARY (FOR QUICK REFERENCE)

Transfer CMP No. 251/2025 — Allowed.
FCOP 454/2025 (divorce petition filed by husband) withdrawn from Family Court, Vijayawada and transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku.
Wife’s convenience treated as paramount; husband’s appearance largely dispensed with before transferee Court, except on specified dates (reconciliation, cross-examination, or when specifically ordered).
Records to be transmitted within one week.
No costs; all pending IAs and interim orders closed.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN