In N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Shal, the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under

Order

Tr.C.M.P.NO.49 OF 2025 This Transfer Civii Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.158 of 2024 from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy to the Family Court at Nizamabad, to bc clubbed and rried along with F.C.O.p.No.11 of

2. Heard Sri Kasarla Avinash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Mohana Chandra Has, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. As per tl-re averments made in the affidavit filed in support of present Tr.C.M.P., the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the respondent-husband on 03.01.2021 at Mandha Ram Reddy Convention, Sagar Road, Hyderabad and during their wedlock, they blessed with a male child, however, disputes arose between them and the petitioner left the matrimonial house and is residing with her parents at Nizamabad; that respondent filed HMOP No.158 of 2024 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Sangareddy for divorce against the respondent. It is furiher averred that petitioner filed a i petition for restitution of conjugal rights and also maintenance case against the respondent uide FCOP No.11 of 2O2S and M.C.No.O1 of 2025, respectively, before the Family Court at Nizamabad; that 2 LNA, J T.CMP No 49 of2025 petitioner has no independent income and she is dependent on her parents and further she has to take care of a younger child. It is further averred that the distance between Nizamabad and Sangareddy is above 170 KMs and it is very difficult for her to travel and attend every hearing in HMOP No.158 of 2024; that there is a threat to her life in the hands of the respondent in the event of attending the Court at sangareddy and therefore. seeks for transfer of HMOP No.158 of 2024 from the Court of Sangareddy to the Court of Nizamabad.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that two cases i.e., FCOP No.11 of 2025 and MC No.1 of 2025 ale pending before the Family Court at Nizamabad and the respondent is appearing in those cases and therefore, no preiudice would be caused to him in the event of transfer of HMOP No.158 of 2024 to ihe Court at Nizamabad and tried together at Nizamabad. He further contended that there is a threat to life of petitioner in the hands of the respondent in the event of her attending the Court at Sangareddy and finally, prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is a Government employee and therefore, it is difficult for *i 3 I.NA. J TTCMP-N,19 ol2A25 him to attend the proceedings at Nizamabad, as he has to obtain leave from his employer for each hearing. Furthermore, the respondent is suffering from Inflammatory Myopathy problem and is undergoing regular treatment at Apollo Hospital at Hyderabad I{ence, he prays to dismiss the petition

6. The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Sectior-r 24 of the CPC, seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts

7. In N.C.V.Aishwarya v. A.S.Saravana Karthik Shal, the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under: "f "9. The cnrdinal principle for ercrcise of pou'vr under Section 24 of the Code of Cioil Procedure is tlmt the ends of jusfice slnuld denutnd the tlrc suit, appeal or other proceeding. ln transfer nmtrimonial nntters, uthereoer Caurts nre cdled upon to consider the plen of trnnsfer, the Courts hnoe to tnkt into considerntion tlrc economic sottndness of both tlrc parties, the social stratn of tlrc spouses nnd their behauiouraL pattern, tlrcir standnrd of life prior to tlrc nmrringe and subsequent thercto and tlrc circumstances of both the parties in eking otLt tlrcir lipclihood nnrl under tuhose protectioe unfureLla they tue seeking their sustennnce to life. Gioen the preuailing socio- econontic pnradigm in tle Indinn society, generally, it is the ruife's conaenience ultich nntst be looktd nt zolile consideing tmnsfer." 8 The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in f.f.C\.Airn*arya's case (supra), has been reiterated by the High Court I 2022 SCC Ontine SC 1199 4 tNA. J TtCMP.No 49 of 2025 /a of Bombay in Devika Dhirai Patil Nee Devika |ayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil2, and observed as under:- "ln a country likt India, impottant decisions such as nrurriage, diaorce are still taken uith the Suidnnce and blessings of elders in tlrc family. For a lady to trmtel alone for tlrc proceedings to a Court ruhere the fate of her marriage is going to be decided .toitltout nty fatrtily trcittber tpould defnitely be a ntnttet of concent atd cause not only plrysicnl inconocnience but nlso enntional aul psychologiL:al ittconoenience. g. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil v' Rahul Ravindra Patil3 followed tl-re principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika jayprakash Buttepatil's case (supra), held as follows:- "Ttrc underlying principle goaerning the proceedings undr'r Section 24 of ttte CPC, is tlmt conuenience of tle uife is to be pret'erred ooer the conuenience of the husbnnd."

10. Thus, there are catena o[ decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Fligh Courts to the ef fect that in matrimonial matters/ clisputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceeclings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband'

11. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Nizamabad, which is at a distance of 170 kms from Sangareddy The petitioner's case is that she apprehends assault by her husband if she 'z lzoz: scc online Bom 1926) 3 1zoz3 scc onLine Bom 1982) ji:&;FE-E7 - A& .,.:{ / 'a:a .'r / 5 LNA, J ticMt'-No.49 al lAzi attends the Court at Sangareddy. That apart, the petitioner stated that due to the matrimonial disputes, she is suffering with mental trauma and as such, it is difficult for her to travel all alone from Nizamabad to Sangareddy to attend the proceedings in the HMOP and that she has take care of minor child. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent is appearing in M.C.No.1 of 2025 and FCOP No.11 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Nizamabad.

72. It is relevant to note that respondent filed HMOP No.158 of 2024 for divorce, whereas the petitioner has filed FCOP No.11 of 2025 for restitution of conjugal rights and therefore, it is appropriate that both the cases be decided by the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions. It IS specifically represented that respondent IS suffering with t I inflammatory Myopat\ problem and taking regular treatment at Hyderabad and therefore, whenever an application is filed for dispense with his personal appearance, the Court shall consider the same

13. In view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments, the convenience of wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of husband and therefore, in considered opinion of this Court the TT.CMP deserved to be allowed 6 LNl, J 7tCMP.N1.49 of 20zJ

74. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP No.158 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court at Nizamabad, for disposal in accordance with law

15. The learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOP No.158 of 2024 duly indexed, to the Family Court at Nizamabad within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYI/ ,4.+ tON o SEC FFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge Court cum Assistant Sessions Judge at SangareddY District'

2. The Family Court at Nizamabad District' 3. One CC to SRI KASARLA AVINASH Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. KASIREDDY MOHAN CHANDRA HAS Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies MKN/PSL (ft- t, I t I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1 910612025 EH1 rAr .<\ ( I1 I ElJ 2025 D1 ,Sr'^-:r- Y t /,, ) !)o a I ORDER TRCMP.No.49 of 2025 I ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (n- >g ,l)