The Andhra Pradesh High Court transferred the husband’s divorce case to the wife’s city. Despite private employment commitments, the court prioritised the convenience of the wife. The ruling reinforces how hardship in matrimonial cases is often assessed through a one-sided lens.
AMARAVATI: The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, presided over by Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao, has allowed a transfer petition filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of the divorce case filed by her husband from Repalle to Ongole.
The parties were married in 2011 as per Hindu customs and have two minor children. Due to matrimonial disputes, the wife has been residing separately at her parental home in Ongole along with the children. She has also filed a maintenance case under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court at Ongole, which is still pending.
The husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Senior Civil Judge at Repalle. The wife contended that the distance between Ongole and Repalle is more than 100 kilometres and that it is extremely difficult for her to travel frequently with two school-going children. She alleged that the divorce case was filed at Repalle only to cause inconvenience to her.
The husband opposed the transfer and argued that the wife was attempting to delay the proceedings. He also informed the Court that he is a private employee and frequently travels to Hyderabad for work.
While deciding the case, Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao relied on settled Supreme Court principles governing transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes. The Court noted that:
“In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration than that of the inconvenience of the husband.”
The Court further emphasised that: “Generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer,” especially in the prevailing socio-economic conditions in India.
After examining the facts, the High Court held that the wife is living in Ongole with two minor children and that related proceedings are already pending there. On this basis, the Court found sufficient grounds to allow the transfer.
Accordingly, the High Court ordered that the original petition be withdrawn from the Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, and transferred to the Family Court at Ongole. The Repalle court was directed to transmit the entire case record within five days. The Family Court at Ongole has been instructed to dispose of the divorce case within four months, considering that it has been pending since 2020.
At the same time, the Court granted the husband limited relief by dispensing with his personal appearance before the Family Court, except on dates when his presence is legally required, such as for cross-examination.
This judgment once again underlines how transfer jurisprudence in matrimonial cases continues to follow a wife-centric approach. While genuine hardship faced by women and children deserves protection, such orders also raise serious questions about whether courts are adequately examining the financial, professional, and logistical burden placed on husbands. There is an urgent need for a more balanced application of Section 24 CPC, where inconvenience is assessed on facts rather than presumed solely on gender.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law & Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 24 | Empowers High Court to transfer cases from one court to another in the interest of justice | Wife invoked this provision to seek transfer of the divorce case from Repalle to Ongole |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 | Inherent powers of the court to pass orders to secure the ends of justice | Used for interim applications including stay of proceedings and modification of earlier interim order |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) | Provides grounds for divorce such as cruelty and desertion | Husband filed the divorce petition under these provisions |
| Criminal Procedure Code – Section 125 | Provides for maintenance to wife, children, and parents | Wife filed a maintenance case before the Family Court at Ongole, which is pending |
| Supreme Court Precedent – Geeta Heera vs Harish Chander Heera | Financial hardship of wife relevant while deciding transfer petitions | Relied upon to support transfer when wife lacks sufficient means to travel |
| Supreme Court Precedent – N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik | States that generally wife’s convenience must be considered in matrimonial transfer matters | Cited to justify giving priority to wife’s convenience in this case |
Case Details
- Case Title: Nallamolu Rajarajeswari vs Nallamolu Mohana Murali
- Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
- Jurisdiction: Special Original Jurisdiction
- Case Number: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 36 of 2025
- Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao
- Neutral Citation: APHC010052312025
- Date of Order: 03 February 2026
- Counsels
- For Petitioner: Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti
- For Respondent: G. Arun Showri
Key Takeaways
- Matrimonial litigation in India continues to operate on the assumption that the inconvenience faced by wives outweighs the inconvenience faced by husbands.
- Transfer petitions are frequently used as a strategic tool, and courts rarely scrutinise whether the choice of forum by the husband was genuinely oppressive or merely inconvenient.
- Professional constraints, travel burdens, and financial pressures on husbands are often treated as secondary considerations in family law disputes.
- Parallel proceedings in different courts significantly increase litigation fatigue and costs, disproportionately affecting the earning spouse.
- There is a growing need for a neutral hardship-based standard in matrimonial cases, where inconvenience is assessed on facts rather than presumed on gender.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.