✦ High Court of India · 15 Jul 2025

The Hon,ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya v. A.S.Sarazana Karthik Shar held as follorvs The cardincrt pinciple for exercise of

Case Details High Court of India · 15 Jul 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KANDAGATLA SRINIVASULU : I Counsel for the Respondent: SRI THOMAS LLOYD The Court made the following: ORDER ,'.& :S: rr. I I I I I I : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY EOUS PETITION No. 35 of 20.25 TRANSFERCIVIL MIscELLAN ORD ER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is llled seeking transfer oI F.C.O.p.No.l2BT of 2024 on the lile of the learned Judge, Family Court, at Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, for trial along with H.M.O.p.No. 146 ot 2024 2 . Hearcl Sri K. Srinivasulu, Iearnecl counse I for Ll.re petitioner as well as Sri Thomas Lloyd, learned counsel for respondent

3. The Brief factual matrix of the case are rhat the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband a nd their marriage vras solemnized on O2.06.2023, at Valigonda Road, Choutuppal Municipality yadadri Bhongior District, as per the prevailing customs in their community ancl soon after their marriage, the petitioner joinecr the matrimonial house of respondenr. It is averred that the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental harassment by respondent eLnd his family members, for additional dowry and was necked out from makimonial house; that the petitioner filed H.M.b*P.No.746 of 2024 before the Court of principal Senior T{L'tP.Nfis of2025 2 Civil Judge, at Bhongir for restitution of conjugal rights' stnce the respondent is ignoring the petitioner . In the meanwhiie' on the file o[ F.C.O.P.No 1287 ot 2024 resPondent [iled Family Court, at Ranga Reddy District at learned Judge' L.B.Nagar for clissolution of marnage' 21 It is further averred that at present' the petitioner ts house and is financiallY refore, it is difhcult for the i Bhongir District to Ranga F.C.O.P. In those set of taking shelter in her Parent's dePendent on her Parents The petitioner lo travel from Yadadr ReddY Distrct to attend the circumstances , the petitioner hled the prescnt Tr'C'M P Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from 4. reiterating the averments macie in the Tr'C M P' contended that the petitioner has filed H M O P No' 1 46 of 2024 fot restitution of conjugal rights which is pending at Bhongir' whereas the F'C'O'P N o'1287 of 2024 filed by the respondent fordivorceispendingatRangaReddyDistrict.Hefurther submitted that parties are same and the facts to be considered and the issues to be decided are more or less the sameandtherefore,itisalwaysappropriatethatboththe matterstobedecidedbythesameFamilyCourtandhence, prayed to allow the present Tr'C'M'P I I i I t I I ! I t I i t .i r-j -) r,cMp.No.3j LojYi2lj 5 Learned counsel for the respondent u,ourd submit that respondent is apprehending threat to his life from the petitioner. therefore his appearancs may be dispensed with. Hoqrever, rhe respondent has Iailed to place any rnaterial on record in support of his contention.

6. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for. lhe petitioner as vrell as learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 7 ' The urderlyir-rg principre governing the proceerlngs u,de r Section 24 of the CpC seeking transfer of the casc, appeal or other procecdings, is enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena of juclgments and the same was followed by various High Cour.ts

8. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Sarazana Karthik Shar held as follorvs " The cardincrt pinciple for exercise of pouer under Section 24 of the Code of Ciuil procedure ts tlnt the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceed.ing. In matimonial mcitters, uthereuer Courts are called_ upon to consid.er the plea of transfer, the Courts haue to take into consideration the 1 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 I I I l I I i I i I ! I I I 4 TrcMP.No 3s of 202 a: economic soundness of both the patlies' the social strato of the spouses and their behauiourat pattent' their stand'ard of life pior to the marnage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their liuetihood and under uhose protectiue umbrella tlrcy are seeking their life. Giuen the preuailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society ' generallg ' il is the utfe's conuenience uhich must be looked at u'thite consideing transfer'" .sustenance g. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme CourtinN,C.V.Aishuarg4,scase(Sldcitedsupra),hasbeen reiterated by the High Court of Bomba-'r in Deuika Dhirai Patit Nee Deuika JagprcLkash Buttepatil u' Dhirai Sunil Pati?, and' observed as under:- "In a countrg like lndia' important decisions such as maricLge' diuorce are still taken uith the guidance and blesstngs of elders in the familg For a ladg to trauel alone for the proceedings to a Court uhere the fate of her mariage is going to be decided without any familg member utould definitelg be a matter of concem and- cause not only phgsical inconuenience but also emotional and Psg chological incortu enience " ' (2023 scc onLine Bom 1926) 2 "/ 5 LN;l, J 'I .CMP.No-35 of 202j

10. Further, the High Court of Bombay in priganka Rahut Pattl u. Rahul Rauindra patit3 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwanyc,s case (3rd cited supra) and Deaika Dhiraj patit Nee Devika Jagprakash Buttepatil,s case (4ti cited supra), and helcl as follows:_ 'Tlte underlying pincipte goueming the ltroceedings und_er Section 24 of the CpC, is that conuenience of the rtife is to be preferced. ouer the cortuenience of the husband.,, I 1. Thus, there are catena oI decisions of the Ijon,ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrrmonial 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.

12. The present Tr.C.M.p is hled principally on the ground that the petitioner is dependent on her parents and shc has no means of rncome. Therefore, it is difhcult for her to travel from Yadadri Bhongir District to Ranga Reddy Disrrict on every date of hearing. ' (204 scc onLine Bom 1982) T{MP.No l5 of 20 6 petitioner has filed of conjugal rights at F.C.O.P'No 1287 of ore, it is aPProPriate same Court to avoid

13. It is relevant to note that the H.M.O.P No'l4 6 of 2024 for rcstitution Bhongir, whereas the respondent filed 2024 aLRanga Reddy Districl Theref that both the cases be decided by the conflicting decisions' 14. Therefore' taking into consideration the circurnstances of the case and in view of the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgme convenience o[ the wife has to be given priority/ prelerence over the convenience of the husband' this Tr'C'M'P deser-ves to be allowed nts that the Courl and facts and underlYing allowed and Tr.C.M.P. ls

15. AccordinglY, this on the Iile of the learned Judge' F.C.O.P.No.1287 of 2024 Family Court, at Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar' ls transferred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge' Ramannapet, for trial along with H'M'O'P'No- 146 of 2024 ' \n accordance with law Judge, Family Court, at Ranga ReddY 16. lThe learned District at L.B.Nagar shal1 transmit the entire orlglnaI record 1 I 7 ,,r"r.r".t, !)tlO;l rn F.C_O.p.No .12g2 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramannapet, preferably within a period of onc (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

17. pending miscellan eous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Therc shall be no order as to costs. DEP.,.?D/;.[5AY'TXA A\ l1' li\l 'v ro //TRUE COPY// ---> CTION OFFICER To, 1 The Judge Family Court Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar 2. The Senior C,vil Jldge, nara-nnipetl 3 One CC to Sri Xanaig'atta Sri;iv;-sulu, Advocate [OPUC] ! One CC to Sri Thomai Ltoyd, Advocat. tOpUCi- 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSI, w HIGH COURT DATED:1 StOtt2O2S ':/- ' ll', r / ..:: 1 1E sEP 65 a .l d' t- r;.',.i.lB a=, ORDER TRCMP.No.3S of 2O2S ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVTL MISCELLAN EOUS PETITION h Qa T CEf. \a-

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments