The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishzaarya v. A.S.Saraoana Karthik Sfta

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedtngs in O.P No.10BG of 2023 before the Family Judge Rangareddy District. At L.B.Nagar in the interest of justice and equity. This Petition coming on for hearing. upon perusing the petition and the Affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P lndra Prakash, Advocate for the Petitroner and Sri B Vryaya Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISEIETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.22 of 2025 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is fiied seeking transfer of O.P.No.1086 ol 2023 from the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at, L.B. Nagar filed by the respondent-husband, to the Court of the VI Additional Famity Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally

2. Heard Sri P. Inclra Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Viiay Kumar, learned counsel lor the respondent.

3. The brief facts leading to filir-rg of the present Tr.C.M.P. are that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemntzed u,ith the respondent-husband on I9.03.2000 at Sowjanva Irunctiorr Hall, Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh, as per the prevailing customs in Hindu Religion. After marriage, respondent started to maintain distance from the famill, msmb.rs and rclatives of the petitioner and never paid any attenl.ion towar.ds the petitioner's feelings Both petitioner the respondent were supposed to live in Hyderabad, but due to Covid-19, they were forced to live at A 2 LNA, J Tr CMP No 22 of2025 respondent's hometown along with the family of the respondent and has never considered the request of the petitioner to go to Hyderabad. Respondent invesred ail the savings of the petitioner given by her parents for the purpose of purchasing lands along with his brother. During the pcriod of pregnancy, the respondent did not take care of the petitioner including medical checkup. Due to the odd behavior of the respondent and their family members, petitioner started lir,ing separately from January, 2021 and the marital relation betw.een the petitioner and respondent was irretricvably broken dowrr. I-ater, petitioner was blessed with female child on 06.05.2021 and the respondent came to see the child once, but did not talk to tJrc petitioner for a long time.

4. Therefore, petitioner filed F.C.O.p.No.284 ol 2023, before the Court of the VI Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally under Scction 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of Marriage and the same is pendhg for adjudication. .,.sf 3 LNA, J 7 r.ClrlP.l\'o 22 of 2025

5. Later, respondent filed O.P.No.1086 of 2023 before Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and the same is pending for adjudication

6. It is further stated that in view of strained relationship between ttre petitioner and the respondent, it is difficult to attend the O.P.No.1086 of 2023 for each and cvery hearing and [u rther as she has to take care of her minor chilcl. Hence, prayed to iransfer O.P.No.1086 of 2023, which is filecl by the responclent, to VI Additional Family Court, I{anga Reddy Disrrict ar Kukatpally.

7. This Court considered the submissiorls made by learned counsel for both the parties. Peruscd the material available on record. 8 The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceeclings, is enunciated by the Flon,ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts 4 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.22 of2025 9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishzaarya Vs. A.S.Saraoana Karthik Sfta1 held as follows: "9. The cardinaL pinciple t'or etercise of pozoer under Section 24 of the Code of Cioil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transJer of tht suit, appeal or other proceeding. ln matrimonial matters, ruherez,er Courts are called upon to consider thz plea of transfer, the Courts hntr to take into consideration the economic soundness of botlt tlrc pnrties, tlp social strata of the spousas and thcir behm,ioLLrnl patk:rn, their stanc]ard of hfe pnor to the ntnningc nnd suhscqru:ul thueto nnd tlrc circuntstnnces of both the pnrties in eking out thetr lit,elihood nnd under tohose protectioe umbreLla tlrcy are seekiug their sustenance to life. Gioen the prettaiLing socio- economic pnrndignt in the Indian society, generally, it is tlrc rutfe's conzteniencc tolnch nurst be lookcd nt u,hile consideing trnnsfe r."

10. The principle of law lairi down bv the Hon,ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishutarya,s cnse 12,,a cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay jn Deoika Dhirai patil Nee Deaika layprakash Buttcpatil o. Dhiraj Sunil patilz, and observed as under:- 1 2022 SCC Ontine sc 1199 2 12023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 5 7i CltP N-o 2.) of 2A25 I,NA, J "ln a country like lndia, irnportant decisions such ns matrifige, dioorce nre still tnken u)itl1 the guidancr nntl blessings of elders in the Jamily. For a lnrly to Lrattel alone for the proceedings to a Court uhere tlrc fntc of her nnrriage is going to be dtcidcd u,ithout any ltmity member utoultl definitely be t nntter of concern nd cause not onLy physictl inconttenience bttt nlso emolional ard psy,lnlogicnl rncot u,t'nience

11. Further, the High Court of Bombay in priyankt Rahul Patil a. Rahul Raaindra Patil3 followed the principle [aic1 down in N.C.V.Aishu1arya's casL. (2n.r cite.d supra) and Deaika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deaika layprakash Buttepatil,s case (3rd cited supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying prmciple got'ening tltc proceed.ings trtrdtr Section of tlrc CPC, is that conpenience of tfu zoife is n bc preferrcd ooer the cott enicnce of the husbnnd.,,

72. Thus, there are catena of c{ecisions of thc I{on,ble I i Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in mahimonial matters/ disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, 3 12023 SCC onLine Bom 1982) 6 I-NI, J a'_-\ li.C MP.No.22 of2025 the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. 1,3. In the present, case, a perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is seeking transfer of the O.p. filed by the respondent from the Judge, IJamily Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, on the ground that with a rninor child she cannot attend the court on each and ever.v date o[ adjournment. Further, for every hearing, sl-rc has [o take assistance from her family members. The F.C.O.P.No. 284 of 2023, is filed by the petitioner for divorce which is pending before the VI Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally and whereas, O.P.No.1086 of 2023 is fited by the respondent for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, which is pcnding beforc Judge, Family Court, Ranga Redcly, L.B. Nagar. l herefore, it is appropriate that both the cases be adjudicated by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions.

14. Therefore, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the-Hbir'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the tr ( .rli' \o )2 o.t )025 petitioner/wife has to be given priority/ preference over the convenience of the respondent/husband, this .l r.ansler CMp deserves to be allowed.

15. Accordingly, this Transler C.M.p. is allowe,d and O.P.No.1086 of 2023 peneling on rhe file of Family Judgr,, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, is n ithdrawn and transferred to the VI Additional Family Judge, Ranga Retldy District at Kukatpally, for disposal in accordance with law.

76. The learned lramill. Juclge, Ranga Rccldy Dish.ict at L.B. Nagar, shall transmit the entire original recor.d in C).1,.\o.1086 of 2023 duly indexed, to the Court of the VI Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy Dish.ict at Kukatpally, preferablv within a periotl of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending misceliancous applications, if any, shall stancl .l"l-u-4 There sh11l bc. no order as to cos ts To, i/TRUE COPYII ,.33i-t'*'AI3iS^.F i$;;.;,,;. \ 1 2 3 4 q The Famiiy Jud ge, Rangaredd y District, at L.B Nagar The Vt Addition al Family Jud ge, Ranga reddy District, at Kukat One CC to SRt P INDRA PRAKASH, Advocate [OpUC] One CC to SRI B VIJA YA KUMAR, AdVocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 ) ORDER TRCMP.N o.22 of 2025 r'":-:'=-- y'."' - - --l 'i4i 2 0 APR 2n25 6( Z (:'' t,\- \i '*.---:_:--2' ALLOWING THE TRCMP WITHOUT COSTS ,\I<- 1,b