The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife - particularly when she is economically vulnerable and residing separately with a minor child - must prevail over the logistical inconvenience of the husband. This ruling reinforces a gender-sensitive approach to case transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, setting a clear precedent for lower courts handling similar petitions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Chenchugalla Sai Kusuma, is the wife in a marriage solemnized on 27.08.2023 in Y.S.R. Kadapa District. After the birth of their daughter, marital discord led to her separation and relocation to her parents’ residence in Madanapalli, Annamayya District, approximately 100 kilometers away. She filed a criminal complaint against her husband, resulting in C.C.No.516 of 2026 under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the Judicial Magistrate in Madanapalli.
In response, the respondent-husband filed H.M.O.P.No.85 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights in Kadapa - a jurisdiction where the wife no longer resides and lacks independent means to travel without male accompaniment.
Procedural History
- January 2025: Petitioner files criminal complaint at Madanapalli Police Station
- February 2025: Charge sheet filed as C.C.No.516 of 2026
- February 2025: Respondent files H.M.O.P.No.85 of 2025 in Kadapa
- March 2025: Petitioner files Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.384/2025 under Section 24 CPC
- March 2025: Respondent files counter-affidavit opposing transfer
- 23 February 2026: High Court hears arguments and delivers judgment
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought transfer of H.M.O.P.No.85 of 2025 from Kadapa to Madanapalli, citing extreme hardship in traveling over 100 km alone with a one-year-old child. She also sought stay of proceedings pending transfer, which was subsumed in the main petition.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits transfer of a matrimonial suit when the wife, residing separately with a young child, faces severe practical and social hardship in attending proceedings in a distant forum, and whether the husband’s convenience can outweigh such hardship.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik to argue that Section 24 CPC must be interpreted with a gender-sensitive lens in matrimonial matters. He emphasized that the wife is economically dependent, socially vulnerable, and physically constrained by childcare responsibilities. He contended that requiring her to travel to Kadapa undermines access to justice and violates the spirit of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel argued that the husband, employed as a software engineer in Hyderabad, would face undue hardship in appearing before a court in Madanapalli. He submitted that the petition was an abuse of process, designed to delay proceedings, and that the husband’s residence in Hyderabad rendered the location of the suit irrelevant.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the cardinal principle under Section 24 CPC: that transfer must be ordered only when the ends of justice demand it. It then turned to the precedent in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, which explicitly held that in matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience must be prioritized due to prevailing socio-economic realities in India.
"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."
The Court found that the petitioner’s circumstances - residing with a one-year-old child, lacking independent mobility, and already engaged in criminal proceedings in Madanapalli - created a compelling case for transfer. The husband’s claim of inconvenience was deemed secondary, especially since he was already residing in Hyderabad and could appear through counsel.
The Court further noted that the husband’s presence was not indispensable for the entire duration of the proceedings. It directed that his personal appearance be required only during reconciliation sessions, cross-examination, or when specifically mandated by the transferee court.
This reasoning reflects a doctrinal shift from formal jurisdictional convenience to substantive justice, recognizing that procedural fairness in family law must account for structural gender disparities.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Section 24 CPC authorizes transfer when the wife’s practical and social vulnerability demands it, and that the husband’s logistical inconvenience cannot override this principle. The suit was transferred to Madanapalli, and the husband’s personal appearance was restricted to essential stages only.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Wife's Convenience Is a Determinative Factor
- Practitioners must now treat the wife’s residence with a minor child as a decisive factor in Section 24 CPC transfer applications
- Courts must conduct a fact-specific inquiry into economic dependence, childcare responsibilities, and safety concerns
- Mere distance alone is insufficient; the cumulative burden on the woman must be demonstrated
Personal Appearance Can Be Waived in Matrimonial Cases
- Courts may dispense with personal attendance of a party if counsel is present, unless cross-examination or reconciliation is involved
- This reduces harassment and financial strain on vulnerable spouses, especially women in rural or economically disadvantaged settings
- Advocates should proactively seek such waivers in petitions under Section 9 HMA or Section 125 CrPC
Transfer Applications Are Not Abuse of Process
- Filing a transfer petition to avoid forum shopping is not inherently improper if grounded in genuine hardship
- Courts must distinguish between tactical delay and legitimate access-to-justice claims
- The burden shifts to the opposing party to prove mala fide intent, not to the petitioner to prove absolute necessity
