B. The HorL'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwatya vs LNA, J

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. M. R. VELU Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER I I i , l i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.42 of 2o25 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transler of H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2024 lrom the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Medak to the Court of t'amily Judge at Secu nderabad. 2. Heard, llri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel fo - the petitioner. N,rtice sent to respondent returned as rt fused and therefore, notice deemed sufficient.

3. Petitionerl herein is wife and rcspondent her tin is husband.

4. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the respor.dent husband on '.).6.O4.2000 at Kammarikatta vrllagc, T rkmal Mandal, Med:d< District and it was an arranged rnarriase. After the marliage, petitioner joined the companr' ,rf the respondent al Shankarampet Village and Mandal, It{edak District and during her stay at matrimonial home she was subjected to p hysical and mental crueltv br, her hur;band and his mottrer and unable to bear the torturc a rd to safeguard herself she lelt the maLrimonial homi and 2 14-MP. No a2 oI202i reached her parents house on 24.09.2021. Since she is erself as her parents are poogshe filed artd D.V.C.No. 16 of 2023 before Magistrate, Medak and unable to maintain h M.C.No.44 of 2022 Judicial First Class complaint under Section 49g-A of IpC also filed a and Section 4 of D.P.Act. ,t-

5. It is further contended that as petitioner had no ding. threat from from Medak to source of income and as she was apprehen her husband, she shifted her residence Secunderabad. After shifting her residence from Medak to Secunderabad, she withdrew M.C.No.44 of 2022 and D.V.C.No. 16 of 2023 from the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak and filed M.C.No.B7 of 2024 before Family Court, Secunderabad and also filed D.V.C (SR) No.3253 of 2024 before IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. It is contended that in the meanwhile, her husband filed H.M.O.p.No.48 of 2024 before the Civil Judge at Medak against her for divorce. 6. It is further contended that she has apprehension that her husband will harm her if she go to Medak Court Senior / 3 7 rC.r,ll \n.t) o[ 2025 LNA,] arrd also stated that she cannot travel to Medak o,1 every day of hearing owing to her personal safety and it w ll be of great inconvr:nience to her. It is further averrt,d that respondent .s attending Maintenance Case rvt..ich is pending bcfcre F amily Court at Secunderabad and Ir.V.C is pending befrr re IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Hvc erabad and no prejr-rdice will be caused to the responden _ if the H.M.O.P trarLsferred from Medak to Secunderabad. 7 . The lee:'ned counsel for petitioner submitted lhat in tran sfer prcceedings of matrimonial disputes. , convenience of the wife has to be considered vis-A-vis the conveniencc of the husband, and therefore, the req-rest of the petitioner'- wife needs to be considered. In suppor. of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitior.er has relied upon thLe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme C rurt in Gargi Konol' o. Jagjeet Singht. B. The HorL'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwatya Vs A.S.Sarrruola Karthik Shcz held as follows: ' 1Z0OS1 f f Suprenr€r Court Cases 447 '12022 iCC Ontine ,lr: 1199 I I 4 LNA, J TrCMP No,t2 o12025 "9. The cordinal pinciple for exercise of pouer und_er Section 24 of the Code of Ciuil Pror:edure i_s that the end_s of justice slrculd demand the transkr of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, whereuer Courts are callEd upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts haue to toke into considerotion the economic soundness of both the parties, tle social strota of the spouses and tLrcir behouioural pattern, their standard of life pior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and. the circunTstances of both, tLe porties in eking out their liuelihood and under whose protectiue umbrella theg are seeking th.eir sustenance to life. Giuen the preuailing socio- economic paradigm in tlrc Indian societg, generallg, it is the wife's conuenience uhich must be looked at tuhile considering transJer. "

9. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishtoarga's ca.se (3.a cited supra.), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Deuika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deuika Jagprakash Buttepatil t) Dhiraj Sunil Patil3, and observed as under:- "In a country like India, important decisrons pzch os manriage, diuorce are still taken tuith lLrc grid.onn and blessings of elders in the r 1202: SCC OnLine Born 1926) 5 I.NA J TTCMP.\'o 12 of2025 fan tly. For a lodg to trauel alone for the pro:,?eding s to a Court ulere tlg fate of her ma,liage is going to be depided without anA fan .ilg member utould definitely be a matter of concenl and cause not onlA physicol inconuenience but also emotional and p s g cho log ical inconu enience". 10 Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priganka Rahul Patti.l. u. Rahul Rauindra Pati Ia follor," ed the principle laic down in N.C. V,Atshutarya's case (3'a cited supra) and .Deuika Dhiral Patil Nee Deolka Jagprakash Buttepatil':; case (4th cited supra), and held as follo'vs: "l'he underlging pinciple gouerning tirc proctt:d[ngs under Section of ttte CPC, is thzt conu?nience of the uife is to be preferred ouer tlrc conu,ttuence of the husband." t1 Thus. t here are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Ccrrrt and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/ disputes, while consideri:rg the application irr transfer of the prcrbeedings from on,: Court to another (lourt, the Courts must prefer the conv enience of the u'ife o,,er the convenience of the husband ' IZOZT SC2pt ' rr: Bom 1982) 6 Ttl:MP.No.42 of2025 LNA..1 L2. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 26.O4.2O2O at Kammarikatta Village, Tekmat Mandal, Medak District ald liled M.C and D.V.C before rhe Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak ald filed complaint under Section 498-A of IpC and Section 4 of D.p.Act. However, when petitioner shifted from Medak to Hyderabad she has withdrawn the M.C and D.V.C from Medak and filed fresh M.C.No.44 of 2022 before Family Court at Secunderabad and D.V.C (SR) No.3253 of 2024 before IV Metropolital Magistrate at Hyderabad. Since respondent has to attend matters which are pending before the Courts of Secunderabad and Hyderabad in connection \.\,ith D.V.C and M.C, and in the light of the principle laid down in the aloresaid decisions, this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the case. 13. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.p. is allorved and H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2024 pending on the hle of the Senior Civit Judge at Meedak, is withdrawn and transfcrred to the // // 1 'r'i1-\,i:r\'-t1til'1J.).:i:-.,+,--+-L..' 7 TrtMP No..,2 of 2025 LNA, J file of the (lourt of Family Judge at Secunderabad, for disposal in ,rccordance with law. :r._:.i :r i . !_ 14 . The I,: arned Senior Civil Judge at Medal:, shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.p.No.4g of 2024 duly indexed, to the Court of Family Jt:.dge at SecunderabirC, preferably n,ithin a period of one month from the dat: of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. Pendirrg miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closecl There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- V. KAVITHA U TY REGISTRAR SEC TION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, -1. The Senior Ci'rrl Judge at tvledak. 2. The Judge. Family Court at Secunderabad. 3. One CC to Sri O tV1 R Vetu, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copie s WL Plp/DL 1 E ,l j ! I I I I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 i ORDER TRCMP.No.42 ot 2025 o o \ t : Lr. si iI 1 2 2 At,i 2t25 i{\? > a D csr .".)-Y.:i' i.' ALLOWING THE Tr.C.M.P. @ qL, 4I$ i j' : i I I I I It I I E E I i I I I ! I : i I I I