Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Thirumalasetty @ Kurakula Kalpana Sai vs Harish Chander on 22 April, 2026
APHC010462172025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 283/2025
Between:
Thirumalasetty @ Kurakula Kalpana Sai ...PETITIONER
AND
Thirumalasetti Mounesh ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B VAMSI KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 397/2025
Between:
Thirumalasetty Mounesh, ...PETITIONER
AND
Kurakula Kalpana Sai Kalpana ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. B VAMSI KRISHNA
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.283 & 397 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner/wife in Tr.C.M.P.No.283 of 2025 filed the present petition
under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer
H.M.O.P.No.155 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur,
to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
The petitioner/husband in Tr.C.M.P.No.397 of 2025 filed the present
petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to
withdraw H.M.O.P.No.182 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Madanapalle, and to transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Gudur.
2. Since the issue involved in both the transfer civil miscellaneous petitions
is one and the same and the parties in both the transfer petitions are also one
and the same, the present transfer civil miscellaneous petitions are heard
together and a common order is being passed in both these transfer petitions.
3. The case of the petitioner/wife in Tr.C.M.P.No.283 of 2025, who is the
respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.397 of 2025 in brief is as follows:
i. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband and
their marriage has been performed on 24.02.2023 at Sullurupet as per
Hindu rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between
both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with her son aged about two
(02) years is staying at her parents’ house at Chinna ThippaSamudram, Madanapalle Mandal and depending upon the mercy of her
parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint before
the Madanapalle Rural Police Station, Annamayya District vide
FIR.No.140 of 2025 under Sections 85 r/w 3(5) BNS and under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is pending
for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that she had also filed a
case H.M.O.P.No.182 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Madanapalle, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the husband of the petitioner is
attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid case before the
competent Court at Madanapalle. The learned counsel for the petitioner
would contend that to cause inconvenience to the petitioner, the
respondent/husband filed a H.M.O.P.No.155 of 2025, on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage.
ii. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife further contended that the
petitioner being a woman having a child aged about two (02) years and
depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult for her to
travel a distance of more than 250 kms from Chinna Thippa Samudram,
Madanapalle to Gudur for attending the divorce case proceedings
before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, on each and
every date of adjournment without any male support and that she was
constrained to file Tr.C.M.P.No.283 of 2025 against the
respondent/husband seeking to transfer H.M.O.P.No.155 of 2025, on
the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, to the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
4. The case of the petitioner/husband in Tr.C.M.P.No.397 of 2025, who is
the respondent in Tr.C.M.P.No.283 of 2025 in brief is as follows:
I. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent/wife and their
marriage has been performed on 24.02.2023 at Sullurupet as per Hindu
rites and customs. In view of the matrimonial disputes between both the
parties, the respondent/wife along with her son aged about two (02)
years is staying at her parents’ house at Chinna Thippa Samudram,
Madanapalle Mandal and depending upon the mercy of her parents.
The petitioner pleaded that the respondent had lodged a complaint
against him before the Madanapalle Rural Police Station, Annamayya
District vide FIR.No.140 of 2025 under Sections 85 r/w 3(5) BNS and
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is
pending for investigation. The petitioner further pleaded that the
respondent had also filed a case H.M.O.P.No.182 of 2025, on the file of
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the
petitioner/husband is attending the Court proceedings in the aforesaid
case before the competent Court at Madanapalle. The learned counsel
for the petitioner/husband would contend that he filed H.M.O.P.No.155
of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, under
Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution
of marriage.
II. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband further contended that the
petitioner is staying at Bangalore, and further the respondent/wife is
very influential at Madanapalle and she would try to implicate the
petitioner/husband in various criminal cases, as such the
petitioner/husband is apprehending danger to attend the restitution case
proceedings before the Court at Madanapalle and that the
petitioner/husband was constrained to file Tr.C.M.P.No.397 of 2025
against the respondent/wife seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.182 of
2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, and
to transfer the same to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.
5. Heard Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/wife and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the
respondent/husband. Perused the material available on record.
6. The undisputed facts of both the parties are that they are the wife and
husband and the wife along with her son aged about two (02) years are
residing currently at Chinna Thippa Samudram, Madanapalle Mandal, at her
parents’ house. The husband is residing in Bangalore. Furthermore, the
petitioner/wife filed Tr.C.M.P.No.283 of 2025, with a specific plea that she is
residing along with her male child aged about two (02) years at her parents’
house and she instituted four (04) cases against her husband before the
competent Courts at Madanapalle, and in order to cause inconvenience, her
husband filed H.M.O.P.No.155 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Gudur, under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
seeking for dissolution of marriage. Therefore, it is very difficult for the wife to
travel at a distance of 250 kms from Chinna Thippa Samudram, Madanapalle
Mandal to Gudur along with her male child aged about two (02) years.
7. The Apex Court in a case of GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER
HEERA1, held by considering the fact that “if a wife does not have sufficient
funds to visit the place where the divorce petition is filed by her husband, then
the transfer petition filed by the wife may be allowed.”
8. The Apex Court in a case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana
Karthik Sha2 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 prior
to 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 the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which
must be looked at while considering transfer.”
9. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for both sides and in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
case laws that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to
be considered than that of the inconvenience of the husband. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that there are grounds to consider the request
of the petitioner/wife in Tr.C.M.P.No.283 of 2025, which is filed seeking to
transfer H.M.O.P.No.155 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
1
(2000) 10 SCC 304
2
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
Judge, Gudur, to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. Furthermore,
the husband has filed Tr.C.M.P.No.397 of 2025 seeking to transfer
H.M.O.P.No.182 of 2025 from Madanapalle to Gudur, but, even as per the
own case of the husband, he is currently residing at Bangalore, but not in
Gudur. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are no merits
in Tr.C.M.P.No.397 of 2025 filed by the husband and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
10. In the result, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition vide
Tr.C.M.P.No.283 of 2025 filed by the wife is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.155 of
2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, is hereby
withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, shall transmit the case record in
H.M.O.P.No.155 of 2025 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle,
duly indexed within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order. Further, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition vide
Tr.C.M.P.No.397 of 2025 filed by the husband is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim
order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Date: 22.04.2026
SRT