Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Addanki @ Mekathoti Rishika vs Harish Chander on 20 April, 2026
APHC010127182026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 92/2026
Between:
Addanki @ Mekathoti Rishika ...PETITIONER
AND
Addanki Deepak Kumar ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. AYESHA AZMA S
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.92 of 2026
ORDER:
The petitioner/wife filed the present petition under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to withdraw Divorce O.P.No.141 of
2025, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku and transfer the
same to the equivalent Court at Guntur, Guntur District.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
I. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and
their marriage has been performed on 09.10.2019. In view of the
matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife
along with her child aged about six (06) years are staying at her
parents’ house at Guntur and depending upon the mercy of her
parents. The petitioner pleaded that she had lodged a complaint
before the Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur, Guntur District vide
Cr.No.504 of 2025 under Sections 85, 79 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 in F.C.O.P.(M.C.) No.1578 of 2026, on the
file of the XII Additional District Court-Cum-Judge, Family Court,
Guntur and a Domestic Violence Case vide C.F.R.No.1546 of
2026, on the file of the Special Mobile Court, Guntur and the
respondent/husband is attending the Court proceedings in the
aforesaid cases before the competent Courts at Guntur. The
learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that to causeinconvenience to the petitioner, the respondent/husband filed a
Divorce petition before the Principal District Judge, Eluru, and the
same was made over to the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku,
bearing Divorce O.P.No.141 of 2025, under Section 10(ix)(x) of
the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage.
II. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
petitioner being a woman having a child aged about six (06) years
and depending upon the mercy of her parents, it is very difficult
for her to travel at a distance of more than 170 Kms from Guntur
to Tanuku for attending the divorce case proceedings before the
learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, on each and every
date of adjournment without any male support and that she was
constrained to file the present petition against the
respondent/husband seeking to withdraw Divorce O.P.No.141 of
2025, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku and
transfer the same to the equivalent Court at Guntur, Guntur
District.
3. Heard Sri Ancha Pandu Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs. Ayesha Azma.S, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the
material available on record.
4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice
of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/wife
has filed a case in F.C.O.P.No.195 of 2026, on the file of the Family Court at
Guntur, agaisn the respondent/husband seeking maintenance and the same is
posted to 29.05.2026. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
represented that in view of the transfer of the aforesaid case from Tanuku to
Guntur, the further proceedings in the divorce case would be delayed, as
such, she requested this Court to fix a time raider to the transferee Court for
speedy disposal of the case, in case, if this Court is inclined to transfer the
case from Tanuku to Guntur. Learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly
conceded that he has no objection in imposing the condition to the transferee
Court for speedy disposal of the case.
5. The material on record prima facie goes to show that in view of the
matrimonial disputes between both the parties, the petitioner/wife along with
her child aged about six (06) years are staying at Guntur. The petitioner
lodged a Criminal Case before the Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur, vide
Cr.No.504 of 2025 under Sections 85, 79 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 also filed a case in F.C.O.P.(M.C.) No.1578 of 2026, on the file
of the XII Additional District Court-Cum-Judege, Family Court, Guntur and a
Domestic Violence Case vide C.F.R.No.1546 of 2026, on the file of the
Special Mobile Court, Guntur, and the respondent is attending the Court
proceedings in the aforesaid cases before the competent Courts at Guntur.
The respondent/husband has filed Divorce petition before the Principal District
Judge, Eluru, and the same was transferred to the IV Additional District Judge,
Tanuku bearing Divorce O.P.No.141 of 2025, under Section 10(ix)(x) of the
Divorce Act, 1869, seeking for dissolution of marriage.
6. 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.”
7. 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.”
8. 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 to withdraw Divorce O.P.No.141 of 2025, on the file of
the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku and transfer the same to the Judge,
Family Court, Guntur, Guntur District. Further, in view of the representation
made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Court is inclined to
direct the transferee Court i.e., the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, to dispose of
1
(2000) 10 SCC 304
2
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627
the said case which is under the orders of transfer within six (06) months from
the date of appearance of both the parties.
9. In the result, the present petition is allowed and the Divorce
O.P.No.141 of 2025, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, is
hereby withdrawn and transferred to the Judge, Family Court at Guntur,
Guntur District. The IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, shall transmit the
case record in Divorce O.P.No.141 of 2025 to the Judge, Family Court at
Guntur, Guntur District, duly indexed within a period of five days (05) days
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Both the parties are directed to
appear before the Judge, Family Court at Guntur, Guntur District on
29.05.2026 at 10.30 a.m. Further, the Judge, Family Court at Guntur, Guntur
District, is directed to dispose of the case in Divorce O.P.No.141 of 2025,
which is now under transfer, within a period of six (06) months from the date of
appearance of the parties before the Court. 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: 20.04.2026
SRT