2026:APHC:34796
Vangalapudi @ Kota Sreelatha v. Vangalpudi Praveen Kumar
Tr.C.M.P. No.88 of 2026
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma
Order dated 25.08.2026 — Non-Reportable
HEAD NOTES
1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 24 — Transfer of matrimonial proceeding — Convenience of wife — Socio-economic circumstances — Para 8
In matrimonial proceedings, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC, the Court must consider whether the ends of justice require transfer. Relevant considerations include the economic position of the parties, social circumstances, standard of life, circumstances in which each spouse earns livelihood, and the source of support available to them. In the prevailing socio-economic circumstances, the wife's convenience generally receives primary consideration. Para 8.
2. Matrimonial proceedings — Wife residing with parents — Financial and physical support — Multiple proceedings at wife's place — Relevant circumstances for transfer — Paras 7–9
Where the wife asserts lack of financial and physical support, is residing with her parents, and other matrimonial/criminal proceedings between the parties are already pending at the place where transfer is sought, these circumstances constitute relevant considerations in determining the appropriate forum. Paras 7–9.
3. Husband residing abroad — Litigation pursued through father/GPA — Presence of husband — Appropriate procedural accommodation — Para 10(iv)
Where the husband is stated to be residing abroad and prosecuting the litigation through his father/GPA, the Court may, after transferring the matrimonial proceeding, direct that his personal presence should not ordinarily be insisted upon unless necessary for conciliation or recording his evidence, provided his counsel is ready and cooperates with the proceedings. Para 10(iv).
4. Section 24 CPC — Transfer — Ends of justice — N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha — Para 8
The cardinal consideration under Section 24 CPC is whether the ends of justice demand transfer. In matrimonial matters, the Court has to consider the circumstances of both spouses, while ordinarily giving substantial weight to the wife's convenience. Para 8.
5. Transfer of matrimonial case — Geetha Heera v. Harish Chander Heera — Para 8
The Court relied upon the principle that where a wife does not possess sufficient funds to travel to the place where the husband instituted divorce proceedings, her transfer petition may appropriately be allowed. Para 8.
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Parties — Paras 1–2
The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is her husband. For convenience, the Court thereafter referred to them as the husband and wife. Paras 1–2.
2. Divorce proceeding instituted by husband — Para 3
The husband instituted D.O.P. No.287 of 2025 before the Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
He sought:
dissolution of marriage;
divorce on the grounds of cruelty; and
nullity of marriage,
invoking Section 10(vii) and (x) and Sections 18 and 19 of the Divorce Act, 1869.
The wife approached the High Court under Section 24 CPC, seeking transfer of that proceeding from Rajamahendravaram to the Family Court at Guntur. Para 3.
II. GROUNDS URGED BY THE WIFE
3. Matrimonial disputes and alleged harassment — Para 4
The wife alleged matrimonial disputes and harassment and stated that allegations had also been made against her concerning her health, including an allegation that she was a cancer patient.
She stated that she was living with her parents and had lodged a report before Old Guntur Police Station. Para 4.
4. Criminal and matrimonial proceedings at Guntur — Para 5
A criminal case, Crime No.331 of 2025, was registered against the husband for offences under:
Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The wife had also instituted proceedings before the Guntur Court, including:
F.C.O.P.(M.C.) No.827 of 2025; and
F.C.O.P. No.826 of 2025, under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Thus, the wife relied substantially upon the fact that other proceedings between the parties were already pending at Guntur. Para 5.
III. OBJECTIONS OF THE HUSBAND
The husband opposed the transfer.
His principal contentions were:
allegations of matrimonial differences and dowry demand were false;
the wife had initiated several proceedings against him, including the criminal case, matrimonial proceedings, writ proceedings and the present transfer petition;
according to him, these proceedings were intended to harass him; and
his power-of-attorney holder/father was approximately 65 years old and suffering from chronic disease, making it difficult for him to prosecute the case at Guntur.
Para 6.
IV. FACTORS FOUND RELEVANT BY THE HIGH COURT
The Court identified three circumstances as particularly relevant to the transfer question:
A. Wife's financial and physical circumstances
The wife claimed that she did not have adequate financial and physical support. Para 7(i).
B. Other litigation at Guntur
There were already other proceedings between the parties at Guntur. Para 7(ii).
C. Husband's residence abroad
The husband was stated to be residing abroad and pursuing the litigation through his father/GPA. Para 7(iii).
These circumstances were considered collectively rather than treating the transfer application merely as a question of geographical convenience. Para 7.
V. LAW APPLIED
1. Section 24 CPC
The proceeding was one seeking transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The controlling consideration is whether the ends of justice require transfer.
The Court did not treat Section 24 as conferring an automatic right upon either spouse. Instead, the relevant circumstances of both parties were examined.
2. Geetha Heera v. Harish Chander Heera
The Court referred to (2000) 10 SCC 304.
The principle extracted was that where a wife does not possess sufficient funds to travel to the place where the husband has instituted the divorce proceedings, a transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed.
Thus, financial capacity to travel and participate effectively in litigation is a relevant consideration in matrimonial transfer applications.
Para 8.
3. N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha
The Court relied upon the principle stated in paragraph 9 of that judgment.
The factors relevant to matrimonial transfer include:
economic soundness of both parties;
social circumstances of the spouses;
behavioural pattern;
standard of life before and after marriage;
circumstances in which the parties earn their livelihood; and
the protective/support structure under which each spouse sustains herself or himself.
The Court particularly noted the principle that, having regard to the prevailing socio-economic circumstances, the wife's convenience generally deserves consideration while deciding transfer of matrimonial proceedings.
Para 8.
VI. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
The Court did not merely rely upon the general proposition that a wife's convenience should prevail.
It considered the particular factual circumstances:
1. Wife's circumstances
The wife was residing with her parents and claimed absence of sufficient financial and physical support.
2. Existing proceedings at Guntur
Other litigation between the spouses was already pending at Guntur.
Therefore, transfer would also place the matrimonial litigation in the same general forum where related proceedings were already being pursued.
3. Husband abroad
The husband was stated to be residing abroad and conducting the litigation through his father/GPA.
The Court therefore considered that his personal attendance could be appropriately regulated rather than allowing his objection concerning the distance to defeat the wife's transfer request.
On consideration of these circumstances and the Supreme Court precedents, the Court expressly concluded:
“the prayer for transfer is found convincing.”
Para 9.
VII. FINAL CONCLUSION AND RELIEF
The transfer petition was allowed.
1. Transfer ordered
D.O.P. No.287 of 2025 was transferred from the Court of the Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, to the Family Court at Guntur.
2. Transmission of record
The Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, was directed to transmit the complete indexed record to the Family Court at Guntur forthwith.
3. Expeditious disposal
The Family Court at Guntur was directed to dispose of the matrimonial proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year, after receipt and renumbering in accordance with law.
4. Conciliation
The Family Court was directed to give both parties a fair opportunity and to exhaust efforts for conciliation, if any.
5. Husband's personal presence
Importantly, the Court directed that the Family Court should not insist upon the husband's personal presence unless necessary for conciliation and for his evidence, provided his counsel is ready and cooperates with the progress of the matter.
6. Cooperation
Both parties were directed to cooperate for early disposal.
7. Costs
There was no order as to costs.
8. Interim order
The interim order, if any, stood vacated and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Para 10–11.
RATIO OF THE ORDER
The essence of the decision may be stated precisely as follows:
In matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC, transfer is governed by the ends of justice. The Court is required to examine the economic and social circumstances of both spouses and the practical circumstances in which each conducts the litigation. Where the wife lacks adequate financial and physical support, is residing with her parents, has other proceedings pending at the place to which transfer is sought, and the husband is residing abroad and prosecuting the case through a GPA, these circumstances can cumulatively justify transfer of the husband's divorce proceeding to the wife's place.
The order further demonstrates that transfer in favour of the wife does not necessarily mean that the husband's personal attendance must be required on every date. The Court can balance the convenience of both parties by permitting representation through counsel except where personal presence is genuinely necessary for conciliation or evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment