The Hon'ble Supreme Co in IVCV Aishwarya v. A.S.Scrauan a Karthik Shar held as lollows

that in the circumstances stated in High Court may be pleased to stay 024 on the fite of the Senior Civit transfer petition Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI K ANANT A RAO Counsel for the Respondents: The Gourt made the following: ORDER {t ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr. C.M.P. No.53 of 2O25 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is hled seeking transfer of H.M.O.P. No.36 of 2024 from the hle of Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan, filed by the respondent-husband, to the Family Court-cum-District Judge Court al Kamareddy

2. Heard M/ s K. Anantha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner. No representation on behalf ol the respondent despite service of notice uide USR No.45657 ol 2025. Therefore, the matter is disposed of, basing on the material available on record.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P. are that the marriage of the petitioner wife and respondent husband was solemnized on 20.O6.2O18 at Gandhari Village & Mandal, Kamareddy District, as per the customs and traditions prevailing in Hindu religion. At the time of marriage, responclent was working as Soldier in Indian Army at Himachal Pradesh and the petitioner joined the company of the respondent and thereafter the respondent has been transferred to Haryana State and the petitioner also joined with her husband and that out of the wedlock, they were blessed u,ith a male child, 6 years and female child, 5 years old respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner was 2 Tr.CMP.Nos j of )t)25 I,NA. J .1 necked out from the house of the espondent and the petitioner ls residing at her Parents'house alo Petitioner filed DVC No.65 of 2O2 g with her two minor children. on the f,rle 1"t Addl. JFCM at KamareddY and she also lodged a complaint with SHO, Sadashiva Nagar PS, KamareddY District an the police registered a case ln Cr.No. 245 /2024 for the offences 3 (5) of BNS and Scction 4 o[ D sheet has also been hled on th (Mobile Magistrate) at Kamarcddy' unishable under Section 85 r/w Prohibition Act and charge of Spl. Judicial lst Class

4. Learned counsel for th petitioner submitted that respondent Iiled H.M.O.P. No. 36 f 2024 seeking divorce from the petidoner and that she is dePen and has t indePendent income ing on her parents and has no lake care of her two mrnor children and that the distance bet about 86 KMs and the Petitioner i een Bodhan and KamareddY is not in a position to travel such a long distance as shc has to tak care of her two minor children. Learted counsel further submit appearing in H.M.O.P. No 36of2 d that as the respondent 1S 24 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Hodhan. It is frrrthcr av rred in the petition that in view of the strained relationshiP ween the petitioner and the respondent, there is a threat t her life in the hands of the respondent. It is further state that for every hearing, the 3 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No53 of 2025 petitioner has to take assistance from her familv mcmbers to appear before the Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan' which is very diff-rcult. Hence, prayed to transfer the H M'O'P' No 36 of 2024 from the hle of Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan to the Family Court- cum-District Judge Court at Kamareddy Moreover' no prejudice will be causecl to the respondent, if H M'O'P' No 36 ol 2024 \s transferred to Family Court-cum-District Judge court at Kamareddy. Learned counsel further submitled that as the respondent is appearing in two cases i e' D'V C'No 65 of 2024 and in Cr.No.245/2O24 of PS Sadashivanagar at Kamareddy no prejudice will be caused to the respondent il H M O P No 36 of 2024 is transferred to KamareddY. 5 This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel or the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

6. The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts. 4 I,NA, J Tr.C,VP.h'o53 of 2025

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Co in IVCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Scrauan a Karthik Shar held as lollows: "9. The cordinal pinctPle Section 24 of the Code of Ci of justice should demand t Inm or other proceeding Courts are called uPon to co Courts haue to take into soundness of both the Part es ond their behautou or to the marriage and tances of both the ond under uthose heir sustenance aradigm in the conuenience whic ,. a ..-_ -,:-,-r transfer." r exercise of power under I Procedure is that the ends transfer of the suit, appeal rimonial matters, uthereuer ider the plea of transfer, the nsideration the economic s, the social strata of the I pattern, their standard of subsequent thereto ond the arties in eking out their rotectiue umbrello theg are . Giuen the preuailing socio- ian socielg, generally, it is must be looked at while of law laid do n by the Hon'ble Supreme 's cdse (2,td cited supra), has been igh Courg of Bo bay in Devika Dhiraj Patil rak(tsh Buttep til u. Dhirdj Sunil PatiP, as under:- 1In a country like Indta, a-s manlage, diuor. gaidance and bless importont decisions are stiLl taken with s of elders in the 1199 1926) -/ 5 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No53 of)0)5 fomily. For a lady to trauel alone for the proceedings to a Court Luhere the fate of her mariage is going to be decided without any family member would definitely be a matter of concerrL and cause not onlg phgsical inconuenience but also emotional and p sg chological inconu enience

9. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priganka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Rauindra PatiP followed the principle laid down in lV. C. V.Aishuarya's case (2nd cited supra) and Detika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (3'd cited supro), and held as foiiows:- "The underlging principle gouerning the proceedings under Section of the CPC, is that conuenience of the uife is to be prefened ouer the conuenience of tLLe husband."

10. Thus, there is a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. 3 lzoz: scc online Bom 1982) 6 LNA' 'I I r.CPIP.No5l ol 2025 1 4-

11. Presentlf Tr.C.M P is ltled the petitioner is dePendent on h rincipally on the ground that r parents and that she has to take care of hcr two minor child en. It is further averred that with two minor children she can ot travel from KamareddY to Bodhan, on each and every date is approPriate that the H'M O adjudicated bY the FamilY KamareddY to avoid conflicting de I adjournment. Therefore, it P. No. 36 ot 2024 can be ourt-cum District Judge at lslons L2. Therefore, in view of the u by the Hon'ble SuPreme Court an the aforesaid judgments tha petitioner/wife has to be given convenience of the resPondent/ dertying princiPle enunciated various other High Courts in thc convenience of the priority/ preference over the usband, this Transfer CMP deseryes to be allowed'

13. AccordinglY, this Transfer C. M. P. is allowcd and the H.M.O.P. No.36 of 2024 Pendtng n thc file of Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan is withdrawn and tra sferred to the FamilY Court- cum-District Judge Court at Kamareddy for disPosal in accordance with law. However, Fa ily C ourt-c um- D i s tric t Judge at Kamareddy, is directed to insis appearance of the resPondent only wFcrrhis Presence is requirc 7 t.n .J Tr.CMP.No53 ol l02i

14. The lcarned Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan shall transmtt the entire original record in H.M'O P' No'36 of 2021 duly indexed to the Farnily Court-cum-District Judge at Kamareddy' preferably rvithin tr period of one month from the date of receipt of a coPl' oI this order- Pcncling misccllaneous applications, if any, shall stand closcd. There shall be no order as to costs' -rD Sd/- N. SRIHARI FPUTY REGISTRAR t //TRUE COPY// \1 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan' 2 The file of I Family co''i1"ffi-iiittict Juq-ge court at Kamareddv 'e. o""., ib;" srr k dnantna Rao Advocate [oPUc] 4. Two CD CoPies SM/P L HIGH COURT DATED: 1910612025 ORDER TR.C.M.P.No.53 o12025 R \, o( r..i I c- i) 12 AUB zt[i , z t D;lir,1 -C\ -:// ,.9,, ALLOWING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION