Judge has laid down certain guidelines to exercise the prtwer under vs Kandi Frienrts Etlucalion Trust and otherst and accordingly,

Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C-, 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 proceedings in F C.O.P.No.148 of 2023 pending before the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Principal Family Court Medchaf Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Kona Sai Soma Shekar, S/o Kona Surya Narayana Aged about 27 yearc, Occ: Private Employee R/o. H-No 10-121, Siri Gari Palli, Mallepalli, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh Also at R/o Plot No. i317, Jubilee Hills, Near BSNL office, Cyberabad, Telangana-s00 033 ...,ET'T'ONER AND Kona Alias Myasa Rama, Wo Kona Sai Soma Shekar Ag Occ:House Hold R/o. 10-2-3, Jammikunta Mandal, Abdi J Karirhndgar, Telangana District. ed about 30 years, ammikunta, ...RESPONDENT Petition under section '151 of c.p.c., praying that in flre circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hilyh court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in Tr.cMp.No.45 of 2025, dated 31 .01 .2025, and as well dismiss the above transfer petition ,rn the ground of suppression of facts pertaining to the case as stated su ora ancl impose qxemplary costs for misleading the Honorable court and on the ground of violation of principal of "Audi Alteram partem', . Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. BADDAM ARAVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : SRI MANDAPATI MURALI KRISHNA The Court made the following : ORDER { HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M. P.No.4 5 of 2025 ORDERz This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to rransfer FcoP.No.148 of 2023 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally to the Couft ofthe Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad' 2. Heard Sri Baddam Aravind Reddy' lear-ned counsel for petitionel and Sri Mandappti Murali Krishna' learned counsel for respondent.

3. The brief tacts of the case' shom-off unnecessary details' required for adjudication of this Tr'C'M'P'' are that the petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the Tr'C'M'P'' aver-red that she and resFgndent are wife and husband; that their marriage was solemnized on 07 '06 '2O20 as per Hindu rites and customs prevalent in their community; that after marriage, she joined matrimonial house of respondent, however' due to the harassment by the respondent, she filed DV'C'No 16 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad' The respondent fited FCOP 2 L.\'A. t t r(-vp.,\._ri of20:j No. l48 of2023 on the file of the principal Family itourt Medchal- Malkaj-eiri Distric ar Kukarpally, seeking for divorce. 4. She further averred that presently, she is stayirg along u,ith her parents at Karimnagar and in view of the straine,l r.elationship between her and the respondent, she cannot travel alone from Karimnagar to Kukatpally, which is about 190 krns a,l has to take assistance fr.om her family rnsm[s15 to attend the Court proceedings in FCOp; and she also apprehends thr eat t'r her lif'e, if she attends rhe court at tr iukatpally, Hyderabad and ht:nce, pra,v.ed to allow this Tr..CMp. I I

5. of Court Learned counsel for the petitioner apaft from reitcr.ating the avements made in the 6ffid2y11, submitted thal respondent is appeanng in the aforesaid DVC pending on the file Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzur.abad and therr indonvenience or prejudice would be caused to respo FCOp.No.l4g of 2023 is transferred as sought for. FIe submitted that since the petitioner is completely dependen parents for her livelihood, it is very difficult for her ro att: Court proceedings in the FCOp at Kukatpally on ever), rl hearing and hence, prayed to allow this Tr.CMp. ndent if :fore, no ate of nd the on her further t I-NA. J T.CMP.No.15 of)025 3 -

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that respondent is ready to bear the travel and other incidental expenses of petitioner which she may incur to attend the Court at Kukatpatly and hence, prayed to dismiss the Tr'CMP' l. Lean-red counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the fol lowing j udgments/orders : (r) Aninttita Das vs- Sriiit Das 2006 (9) SCC 197 (ii) Order in TrCMP.No.64 of 2024, dated25'06'2024 (iii) Common order in TT.CMP' No'809 of 20 16' dated 06-12-

8. This Court has gone through the aforesaid judgments/orders' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anindita Das's case (cited supra)' filed by the petitioner therein/wife was dismissed on the ground that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the t petitioner and her companion for every visit when she is required to attend the Court at Delhi. g. TrCMP'No.64 of 2024 filed by the petitioner therein/wife wasdismissedvideordersdated25.06.2024onthegroundthat both the parties therein are residing at Nirmal and as such' there is no reason to transfer the FCOP pending in the Courl at Nirmal to 4 I-NA, J ryCMP.No.t5 of202: \] the Courts at l{yderabad or Ranga Reddy District, as r;:ught for by the petitioner therein.

10. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is ;.r:siding with her parents at Karimnagar and respondent is residinll at Jubilee Hills, Cyberabad, unlike in TrCMp.No .64 of 2024,wht:re both the parties therein are residing at'Nirmal, therefore, the l.acts of the said case are not sirnilar to the present case and hence, the saicl order is ol no aid to the respondent. i I. Tr.CMp.No.g09 ,of 2016 and batch, which were filed by the petitioners therein/wives, were dismissed by leamed single Judge of erstwhile Fligh Court of Andhra pradesh, vide com;non order dated 06.12.20 18. In the said common order, the learned single Judge has laid down certain guidelines to exercise the prtwer under Section 24 CpC in matrimonial cases and further, heLl that the t cases of the ltetitioners therein/wives does not fall in any of the said guidelines and also the guidelines of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan ,Singh Vs. Kandi Frienrts Etlucalion Trust and otherst and accordingly, t I 2008(3) SCC 6se /_ \7. J T{MP.No a: oI )025 5 rejected the PraYer of the Petitioners therein/wives seeking transf'er of the cases

12. In the present case, the petitioner/wife is seeking transler of FCOP on the grounds of inconvenience and threat to her life' As such, the case ol the petitioner falls under guideline Nos' l ' 2 and 6 enunciated in the common ordet' passed in TrCMP'No'S09 ol 2016 and batch. I 3. lt is pertinent to note that in the instant casc' admittedly' respondent is appearing in DV'C'No' 16 of 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Judge' at Huzurabad' Therefore' as per guideline Nos.l, 2 and 3 enunciated in the common order passed in TrCMP.No.809 of 2016 and batch' if the convcnience caused to both the parties is weighed and further' to strike balance between the rights of the parties, this Court' in the facts and of the present case, is of the considered opinion that "i."u*rtun"", the prayer sought for by the petitioner/wife needs to be considered' I

14. Further, it is also relevant to refer to the underlying principle gover-ning the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings' which is 6 LNA, J T.CMP.No.ls o1202: !\ enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena ofjudgments and the salne was followed by various High Courts. 15. The Hon'bte Supreme Court in NCV Aishu,trya Vs.A.S. Sarovano Karthik Sha2hetd as follows: "Tht: cardinal principle for exercise oJ- pov:zr under Secrion 24 of the Cofu of Civil procedttre i.s that the ends of .iustice should demand the transfer o/. the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonia I matters, yvherever Courts are called upon to cons ider th,: plea of trans-fer, the Courts have to take into consideruttion the economic sounhness of both the parties, the sociel strata of the spotrses and their behavioral pattern, their standctrd of life prior to the marriage arul sttltsequent therelo ctnd the circumstances of both the Ttc,rties in ekinq out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to li)/(). Given the prevailing socio- economic parodigm in thc Inclian socicl,,, generally, it is the wife's convenienc,t, which must be looked at while considering transfer. " I

16. The principle of law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Courl in i\t.C.V. Aishworya,s case (3d cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Deviku Dhiraj paril I iro22 SCC Ontine SC 1199 LNA' J T.CMP.No.l5 oI202s 1 Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v' Dhirai Sunil Patif ' and observed as under: - "ln 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 ihere 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 P sYc ho I o gic al inc onYenienc e' " l.T.Further,theHighCourtofBombayinPriyankaRahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Pari/ followed the principle laid down in N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra) and Devika Dhirai Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (4th cited supra)' t and hetd as lollows: - "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' " )(2023 scc online Bom 1926) 'izoz: scc online Bom 1982) ,l 8 LNA, J C lll P. No. 4 5 of 202 5 ',"t

18. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme (lourt and other High Courls to the effe,:t that in matrimonial rnatters/d isputes, while considering the application for transfer o1- the proceedings from one Court to anotlt:r Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience ol the wife over the convenience of the husband.

19. For the fbregoing reasons and further, in vieur of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Suprenre Courl and various other High Courts in the aforesaid j udgru:nts that the convenience of the petitioner/wife has to be given priority/ preference over the convenience of the respondent/hushand, this Courl finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the FCOP are justifiable and therefore. this TrCMp deserves to hc allowed. \20. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.p. is allowed and PCOI, No.l4g of 2023 on the hle of principal Family Courr l\4edchal_ Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally is transferred to the (tourt of the Senior Civil .ludge at Huzurabad, for disposal in accordance with law. o LNA, J TtctlP.No.tS of 2025

21. The Principal Family Court Medchal_Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpaily, Hyderabad, shall transmit the entire original record in FCOP.No. 148 of 2023, duly indexed, to the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, preferably within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There sha be no order as to costs. SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY STANT REGISTRA R //TRUE COPYII To, SECTION OFFICER I 1 The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge _cum_ principal Famity court Medchat_Maikajsir;-diJiiii,iIixl[rtp"rrv. The Senior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad. One CC to SRt. BADDAM ARAVTND REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRt MANDAPATI MURALT KRISHNA, Advocate tOpUCI Twg CD Copies I

5. Pcsd/gh ] HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER TRCMP.No.45 ot 2025 t t: I-\ AI () 1 1 JUt 2025 * :) i,rf^( * ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOU$ PETITION }K \0