tViryala @ Chada Sudeepthi v. Chanda Vijay Kumar

HON'BLI' SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFtTR CtVIL MI SCELI-ANEOUS PI]TITI ON No.48 o12025 ORDER: l-his flansfer Civit Miscetlaneous petition is filed seeking to transGr FCI.)P No. l83i of 2024 pendingon the file of rhe Family Coufl, Ranqa Reddy Disrrict at L.B. Nagar to the FanLily Court, Nalgonda. to be rried along with Op.No.g4 of 2024. 2. Heartl Sli B.Kotesw.ara Rao, learned counse for petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondent though Sri Aneef Pasha Shaik. advocate, entered appearance on his behalf. 3. The brief f-acts of the case, shom_ofl unneoessary details, required lbr adjudication of this Tr.C.M.p., as rrverrr:d in the affidavit fllcd in suppofl ol the TrCMp, are that the petir.ioner and respondent ale w.if'e and husband; that their lnarrrage was solemnizecl or.r 08.12.2023 at Hyderabad per Hindu rites and customs: thal soon atter the marriage, the petitio;-rer j,tined the rnalrimoniaI company of the respondent, howe rrer, she was subjected to physical and rnental harassment and v/as driven out tiom the matrirnonial housc; and that later, she hletl Op.No.g4 of 2024 for divorce on rhe lile of Family Court, Irlalgorrda. The 2 LN/|. J TflvP.No.18 of )02 j respondent as a counter blast to the said case, filed FCOp.No. I g33 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for restitution ofconjugal rights and both the said cases are pending adjudication \

4. The petitioner fufther averred that she is residing at her parents' house at Devarakonda Town, Nalgonda District and is dependent on her parents for her survival and as such, it is difficult fbr her to travel from Nalgonda to L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad to attend the Court proceedings in FCOp on each date of hearing of the said case and hence, she prayed to allow this Tr.CMp. 5. Leamed counsel for the petition er, apatl from reiterating the averments rnade in the affidavit, submitted that initiaily, the petitioner fi led Op for divorce and thereafter, the respondent f.iled FCoP for restitution of conjugal rights and since both the cases are inter linked. it is appropriate that both the cases be decided by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions and accordingly, prayed to allow this 'IrCMp.

6. lt is relevant to refer to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CpC seeking transler of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enurciated by the f, LNA, J TrCLlP.No.l8 of2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena ofjudgments and the sirme was followed by various l-Iigh Courts- l. Tlre Hon'ble Supleme Cour-t in NCV Aishwarya Vs' A'S' Saravanu Korthik Sllarheld as fbllorvs: "The curdinul principle -for exercise of power under Section 21 oJ ttte C)ode oJ Civil I'rocedtre is lhat the end's ofjistice should tlemancl the trans.fer o./ the suit, appeal or other prttceerling. ln matrimottittl malters, wherever (:ourtt are colletl ttpon to cortsicler the plecr of transfer, the ('ourts have to lake into consitleratiort lhe ecctnomic soundness oJ both the parlies. tl'te socidl .strdta of the spouses and their hehavioral pauern their standard of Lrfe prior to the marriage and sttbseqtrcnt therelo and the circumstances of both the parties in eking oul their livelihood trnd under whose proleclil)e umbrella the.v- ore seeking their sustenance to life ' Giv'zn the prevailing.srtcirt econonrc partrdigm in lhe Indian society, generalll', it is lhe t'iJb's convettience which must be iooked ot whilc trtns iJe r ing lruns[cr-" The plinciple of taw laid donn by the Hon'ble S'rpreme

8. Courl in N.C.V. Aishworya's case (3"t ciletl suprt), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhirai Patil Nee Deviku Jqprakash Buttepilil v. Dhirai Sunit PatiP, and observed as under: - \ \ ' 2oz2 scc online sC 1199 12023 SCC Online Bom 1926) 4 LNA, J TtCtIP.No.l8 of )D5 " ln a counlry like India, important decisions such os marriage, divorce are still token with the guidonce and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to o Court where the fate of her marriage is going to be decided without any family member would definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psycho logical inconvenience. "

9. Further, the High Court of Bombay in priyanka Rahul Palil v. Rahul Ravindra pafif followed the principle laid down in .MC. V.Aishwarya's case (3rd cited supra) and. Devika Dhiruj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil,s case (4,h cited supra), and held as lollows:- "The ttnderlyittg principle governing the proceetlings under Section 21 of the CPC, k th.at convenience of the w i,fe is to be preferred over the convenience of lhe husband. "

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme Cou( and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial marters/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Couft to another Couft, '(2023 SCC online Bom 1982) \ ) LNA. J TfMP.No 1E of 202s the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the'wife over the convenience of the husband'

11. This TT.CMP is filed principalty on the grouncl thal the petitioner is dependent on her parents and is residing with her parents at Nalgonda and as such, it is diflcutt for her to tlavel from Nalgonda to Hyderabad on each and every date of hearing of FCOP filed bY the resPondent.

12. Admitteclly, the OP fited by the petitioner for: divorce is pending in the Court at Nalgonda and the FCOP liled by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights is pending in th': Courl at Ranga Reddy District. Hence, it is appropriate that both the cases be adjr,rdicated upon by the satne Courl to avoirl conflicting decisions.

13. In vieu' of the aforesaid lacts and circlrtnstances of the case and furlher, in view of the underlying principle ':nunt:iated by the Hon'bte Supreme Couft and variotts othel HigtL Cotrts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience ol the rvile has to be given priority/ preference over the convenience of the husband, this Court is of the considered view that thc petitioner 6 L\..1, J TrcivP.No.tB oI202 i IS has made our a case for transfer of the FCOp filed by the respondent and therefore, this TrCMp deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.p. is allowed and FCOP.No. 1g3 3 of 2024 on rhe file of the Family Courr, Ranga Reddy, at L.B. Nagar transferred to the Family Coufi. Nalgonda, to be tr.ied along r.r,ith Op.No.g4 of 2024pending on its file and for disposat in accordance with law. 15. The Judge, L-amily Courr, Ranga Reddy, at L.B. Nagar, shall transmit the entire original record in FCOp.No. lg3 3 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Judge, Family Court, at Nalgonda, preferably within a period of one month ltom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter. the Judge, Family Court, at Nalgonda, shall club both the cases-FCOp.No. I 833 of 2024and Op.No.84 of 2024, conduct joint triar and dispose of the cases in accordance with raw. 16. Pending r.r.r iscellaneou s applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar 2. The Learned Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda. 3. One CC to SRt. B KOTESWARA RAO Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRt. ANEEF PASHA SHATK Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies 'ft'ttlkam L I .l 2 0 sEP 2$fi HIGH COURT DATED:08/0712025 ORDER TRCMP.No.48 of 2025 ALLOWING THE TRANSFER C.M.P. ?o'vt*o K p\8 \a5