The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Kurthik Shatheid as follows

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri pVL. Bhanu prakash counsel for the Respondent: Sri DV. sudhir Kumar (No representation) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.17 of 2025 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer FCOP.No.433 of 2024 pending on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-Il Addl.District Judge at Hanumakonda, to the Family Court- cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar

2. Heard Sri PVL.Bhanu Prakash, ieamed counsel for the petitioner There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, though Sri DV.Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel entered appearance. Therefore, the matter is being disposed off basing on the material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case, shom-off unnecessary details, required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., are that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 19.02.2017 at PVR Plaza Function Hall, Laxmipur, Karimnagar, as per Hindu rites and customs; that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter; that thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental harassment and was abused and attacked by the respondent; and that ultimately, her in-laws necked out her from the matrimonial house. The petitioner filed DVC No.79 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate of I I \ t: 2 First Class (Special Mobile PCR) at Karimnagar; that the respondent flled FCOP.No.433 of 2024, beforc the Judge, Family Court-cum-Il Addl.District Judge at Hanamkonda, for restitution of conjugal rights. It is further averred that the petitioner has no income and she is dependent on her parents; that she has to take care of her minor child; that the distance between Karimnagar to Hanamkonda is about 100 kms. and therefore, she cannot travel from Karimnagar to Hanamkonda, to appear in FCOP.No.433 of 2024 on each date of hearing along with her minor child and hence, prayed to allow the Tr.CMP.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner apaft fiom reiterating the averments made in the affidavit submitted that the DVC No.79 of 2024 filed by the petitioner is pending at Karimnagar; and that it would be convenient to both the parlies if FCOP.No.433 of 2024 filed by the respondent is transferred from Family Court-cum-Il Addl.District Judge, Hanamkonda, and accordingly, prayed this Court to allow this Tr.CMp.

5. This Court gave eamest consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

6. It is relevant to refer to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, I Yry 3 I I i ,' i , appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by the llon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Saravana Kurthik Shatheid as follows: " 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 liJb. 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. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C-V.Aishwat)/a's case (3'd cited supr&), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patif , and observed as under:- :t:,* SCC Online SC 1199 SCC Online Bom 1926) 4 "In a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court where the fate of her marriage is going to be decided without any family member would defnitely be a ma er of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychological inconvenience. "

9. Further, the High Court of Bombay h priyanka Rahul patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patif followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra) and Deviku Dhiraj patil Nee Devika layprakash Buttepatil,s case (4th cited supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. "

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme court and other High courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. 3 12023 SCc Online Bom 1982) l l I I I I I r I : i I 5

11. A perusal of record would disclose that the TT.CMP is filed principally on the ground that the petitioner has no independent income and she is dependent on her parents. Further, she has to take care of her minor child who is aged about 7 years; that the distance between Karimnagar to Hanamkonda is 100 kms.; and that it would be quiet difhcult for her to travel all the way from Karimnagar to Hanamkonda, to attend the Court proceedings on each date of hearing in FCOP.No.433 of 2024, along with her minor child. \ \

12. For the foregoing reasons and further, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the husband, \ this Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitionel seeking transfer \ of the FCOP are justif,rable and therefore, this TT.CMP deserves to be allowed.

13. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and FCOP.No.433 of 2024, pending on the file of Family Court-cum-Il Addl.District Judge at Hanamkonda, is transferred to the Family court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, for disposal in accorclance with law. 6 l l l l I l

14. The Family Court-cum-Il Addl.District Judge at Hanamkonda, shall transmit the entire original record in FCop.No.433 of 2024, d,tly indexed, to the Family court-cum-Addl.District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII I SECTI OFFICER To, Karimnagar. '1. The Family Judge (ll Additional District Judge) at Hanumakonda 2. !-he. Famity Court_cum_Additional Ol.tri".i' lnO Sessions 3. One CC to Sri pVL. Bhanu prakash, Advocate tOpUCI 1 9n. CC to Sri DV Sudhir Kumar, ndvoc"t"iOp'JCf 5. Two CD Copies Judge at kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 S14r i. t/ i) '1, 1 0 sEP 2U5 : ( I ,.1 t, O6 .S r)l Ti ! r -i:' a-/ ORDER TRCMP.N o.17 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE TR.C.M.P. q u €