The Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirms that in matrimonial disputes, transfer petitions under Section 24 of the CPC filed by wives should primarily consider the wife’s convenience—upholding binding Supreme Court authorities and providing strong precedential value for future petitions seeking transfer on grounds of hardship to the wife.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | TRCMP/202/2025 of TIPPANABOYINA PADMAVATHI Vs TIPPANABOYINA SIVA KUMAR |
| CNR | APHC010328902025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Matrimonial / Procedural |
| Questions of Law | Whether transfer of matrimonial proceedings should prioritise the wife’s convenience under Section 24 CPC? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The judgment holds that in transfer petitions under Section 24 of the CPC in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is to be prioritised over the inconvenience caused to the husband. This position is based on binding Supreme Court authority, which recognises socio-economic factors and the difficulties faced by women in having to travel for litigation. Where the wife shows justifiable hardship or inconvenience, courts should allow transfer of pending matrimonial proceedings to the jurisdiction more convenient for her. The High Court relies specifically on Supreme Court precedents to reinforce this principle. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA (2000) 10 SCC 304; N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court ratio that the wife’s convenience generally prevails in matrimonial transfer petitions and that circumstances such as economic concerns and social context must guide the court’s discretion. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner wife, residing separately due to matrimonial disputes, sought transfer of a pending divorce petition from Sattenapalli (filed by the husband) to Anakapalli, citing hardship and long distance (over 400 km). Notice was served on the respondent, but he did not contest. The court, after hearing petitioner’s counsel and reviewing documentary proof, found sufficient grounds under prevailing precedent to allow the transfer. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA (2000) 10 SCC 304; N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that in transfer petitions involving matrimonial disputes, courts must explicitly prioritise the wife’s convenience when considering applications under Section 24 CPC.
- Applies and relies on recent and long-standing Supreme Court authority, thus solidifying the principle as binding precedent within Andhra Pradesh and persuasive elsewhere.
- Courts are directed to consider factors such as the difficulty for the wife to travel without assistance, socio-economic context, and overall hardship.
- No need for the respondent’s appearance to defeat a well-founded transfer petition if notice and proof of service are on record.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court confirmed service of notice on the respondent, who did not appear or contest.
- The petitioner established through affidavit and documents that she is residing in Anakapalli due to marital discord, and faces real hardship (distance of over 400 km, lack of assistance, being a woman litigant).
- The Court expressly relied on Supreme Court precedent:
- In GEETA HEERA Vs HARISH CHANDER HEERA, the Supreme Court held that the wife’s inability to afford or practically travel for litigation is good ground for transfer.
- In N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha, the Supreme Court detailed that in matrimonial transfer matters, courts must consider economic and social circumstances, and generally should favour the wife’s convenience.
- The High Court, applying these principles, found there were justifiable and sufficient grounds for transfer in this case.
- Ordered transfer of the proceedings from Sattenapalli to Anakapalli, with directions for expeditious transmission of case records.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Marriage with respondent subsists, but parties have ongoing matrimonial disputes and live apart.
- Husband filed divorce proceedings in Sattenapalli, over 400 km away from petitioner’s residence in Anakapalli.
- Attending proceedings at such a distance is particularly difficult for the petitioner, a woman, with no male assistance.
- Requested transfer for convenience and to avoid hardship.
Respondent:
No representation despite service of notice; no submissions or objections recorded.
Factual Background
The petitioner-wife and respondent-husband married in 1990 and had a child together. Due to matrimonial disputes, the wife has been residing separately in Anakapalli. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition in Sattenapalli (H.M.O.P. No. 81 of 2024) under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife filed a transfer petition invoking Section 24 CPC, seeking to move the case from Sattenapalli to Anakapalli, citing distance of more than 400 km, inconvenience, and lack of assistance. Notice of the transfer petition was served on the respondent; he did not oppose or appear.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The provision permits the High Court to transfer any suit, appeal, or proceeding from one civil court to another for reasons including convenience of parties or witnesses.
- The court interpreted Section 24 CPC in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence, affirming that “ends of justice” in matrimonial contexts mean the wife’s practical hardship and overall convenience must be given paramount consideration.
- No interpretation narrowing or expanding the statutory language—application in line with binding case law.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in the judgment; single-judge order.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations have been set in this judgment; applied existing standards for proof of service and transfer under Section 24 CPC.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.