The High Court · 2025

er Section 151 of c P-c-.0:Xliffi"ln,il""*li; 3:",[il:;T: tl'o"p.i.i".i'OO i ot iOZq.on the file of avit filed in support further Proceedings tn r 'u ;t.o.irt :;A;-J"Hvoeraoao at Kalpatha ruvu complex' :SRI. V YADU KRISHNA SAINATH -ot Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the ResPondent The Court made the following : NONE APPEARED : ORDER HON'B[-X- I;RT JUSTTCE LAXMI NARAYA\A At,ISHETTY TRAI-rS;li[R i IVIL MISCELLAN )N ]lq.! of 2025 oRpE_B 'Ih s Iransf'er Civil Miscellaneous petition is flle,l seeking transler r f tCOI,.No.l605 of 2024 ot rhe file of thr: principal Familv [), ru r .rudge, at Hyderabad, Kalpatharur,rr C.*piex to the Courl ot l A,llitional Family Court Judge, Ranga Red,1v I_ istrict. at L.B.Narrar

2. Ht:a.d tiri yadu Krishna Sainath, learned courlse fbr the petitione- Dc,;1>ite service of notice, there is no representltion on behalfolrt: t::;pondent.

3. 'fh,: irr r.t' f-acts of the case, shom_off unnoces:iar.J, details, required lc,r arl rrdication of this Tr.C.M.p., are that the.tetit oner in her affidari fil:r1 in support of the Tr.C.M.p., aven-cd lhar. ;he and respondenl arc wife and husband; that their rna r.iag e was solemnizi:rl :t ? 1.12.201g at Vijaya Gardens, Chirmpirpet as per Hindu nter; i n( customs, that after marriage ceremorlles. she joined the matrimorrial compzly of respondent at Champapet, IIvdt,rabad, however, soon _hereafter, the petitioner along with hrr hr sband went to USla nr,1 the respondent and his family mr:mb:rs r,tarled harassing thr 1r,1r ilisnsl both physically and menrallv or_r pettl, LNA' ) T.CMP No.55 of202s 2 reasons and also threatened her with dire consequences' As she was pregnant, she came back to lndia for delivery and blessed with a femate child who is now aged about 4 vz years. tt is further averred that respondent flted FCOP'No'1605 of 2024 basing on created and concocted grounds, for dissolution of marriage before the Principal Family Court Judge, at Hyderbad' Kalpatharuvu Complex' In the meanwhile, the petitioner hled FCOP'N o'1144 of 2024 before the Principal Family Court Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar' seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights and the same was transferred to I Additional Family Courl Judge' Ranga Reddy District, at L'B'Nagar; Domestic Violence Case vide Frle No.5654/PO/DV Act 2005 before the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ranga Reddy District' L'B'Nagar; and Maintenance Case vide M'C'No'302 of 2024 before the I AdditionalFamilyCourtJudge,RangaReddyDistrict,al L.B.Nagar and also lodged a complaint registered as FIR No 437 of 2024 dated 06.ll.Z[z4at Women Police Station' Rachakonda' for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A' 406 and 506 of I.P.C and Sections 3 arrd 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act' 1961 and the said cases are Pending' LNA, ) lrt VP \o_j5 of202t

4. 'tle retitioner further averred that she is prcsertll.residing at Cha,Pa;,g1. 1{yderabad, along with her minor r:hilci an,l since all the case'; i r e pending before the courts at I_lang a Reddy, F.C.O F,.1,:c, ii0,5 of 2024 can be tried along wi h IrCtOI,.No.i744 of 20 -1,1 i: convenient to the respondent. [n .hos: set of circutn statr c,rri the present .I.r.CMp 5. is filed. [,r:a-urrrl counsel for the petitioner apart fi.om rert:rating the averrncnts lade in the aflidavit submitted thar rs5ponllsnl i5 appearirrrl n a I the cases filed by the petitioner ir tlte (.,,r lrts at Ranga Reridl District, L.B.Nagar and therefore no pre. udice would br: ciIr.;ed ro him if F.C.O.p.No.i605 ot. 20.i4 is transfen-erl o tt:: Court at Ranga Redcly District, L.B.|laga:. He fur1her su};nrjr:gJ that criminal case filed against the respor dent is also pe:rcli r q at Women police Station, Rac rakc nda Therefore, i1 ir appropriate that the TrCMp is allov,ed. Lea,ned counsel for. l,elililner further submitted that no inconvenienr e is said to be carLs,rl to respondent if the case is transfer:ed ;ionr the Courl at Kalra,hrtruvu Complex to the Court at Ritnge Reldv District, L I), "i, 1qar, LNA, ] T{MP.No't5 of 2025 4

6. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner' Perused the material available on record. 7 Sectton The underlying principle governing the proceedings under 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case' appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court tn a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High i I I ! i I I i I l l ; l I i i 1 I Coutls

8. The t{on'bie Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs' A.S.Saravana Katthiksftal held as follows: .,ThecardinalprincipleforexerciseofpowerunderSection 24 o/ the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the sttit' appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters' wherever Courts are callecl upon to consider the plea of transfer' the Courts have b take into consideration the economic soundness of both the pdrties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto rtnd the circumstances of both the patties in eking out thetr livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to tife' Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society' generally, it is the wife's conttenience which must be looked at while considering transfer' " 1 2022 scc online sC 1199 5 tNA..t tt( rlP.\o it of 201r

9. 1'hr: rr nciple of law laid down by the H:n.ble Supreme court r r N ,1'.I,.Aishwaua,s cose (3d ciretl s prl,/'. hi s been reiterated 1.r,. he High Court of Bom bay in Devi,ta lthirr,j patit Nee Ds,it,:a ,tr1,prakash Buftepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil patit), and obsen,eC a:; Lu r,Jer:_ lt, tt (:oltnttn like tnctia, important dectsiott; srtt,tt tr.s rnorriage, tlivorce are still token with thc * u*",':;,rt:;:;': t) ,r' ,"'o"orn ,;":;::r'::" tr (-. ttr.t where the /itte o.f.her ntarrioge is g,)inp t(,t b! oe(.ided withottt anv.family member yttu/c{ ;it:iini,t ly be a mcttter of concern and cctuse ttot tt,1tt Il,v.sical inconvenience bttt also emotiottol ln, ! {st t:ltological inconyertience.,,

10. Fuftlrr.., :1r:: IJigh Courl of Bombay in priyutrkc. Ralrul Patil v. Rqht,l Ravindra pqtil3 followed the principle laid dr wn in t\[C. V.Aishnt,.r.va's case (3'd cited supra) and Devikcr Dlttraj Patil Nee Deyika layprakash Buttepatil,s case (4,h cited supra), and held as fo'lor,, s:- " Tlt t' t r, 1 -:,. ll, i n g p rinc ip le gove rning t he p r o c e e c,t i n gs the r ili' is n be pret'eted over the convenience o'f tlt: lnr: l'r rnd " ; i,t'i"Sf;fl, I (tnt-t' ' - z 1162j SCC r)Jozr sct LNA, J TiMP.No.s5 oJ 2025 .ir.. 6

11. Thus, there aro catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courls 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 give prelerence to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband' |2.Leamedcounselforthepetitionerspecificallycontended that the respondent is appearing in all the cases filed by petitioner in the Courts at Ranga Reddy District' L'B'Nagar and if this TrCMP tS allowed, no Prejudice wiil be caused to respondent. [t is relevant to note that FCOP'No '1744 of 2024 hled by the petitioner seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights is pending before the Principal Family Court Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L.B'Nagar, whereas FCOP'No'1605 of 2024 hled by the respondent seeking dissolution of marriage is pending before the Principal Family Court Judge' at Hyderbad' Katpatharuur Complex. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate if F.C.O.P'No 1605 of 2024 filed by the respondent andF.C'o'P.No.|.T44of2024filedbythepetitionerbetriedby the same Court to avoid conflicting decisions' '-- / 7 LNA, J fr--MP.\'o.sS of 202j

13. :\cccrCingly, this Tr.C.M.p. is allowed and FC(rp.No.l605 of 20..4 on the file of the principal Famil.r Ccurt Judge, at Hyderirbad, I(alpatharuvu Complex is transferred to the Court of I Additional l:'amily Court Judge, Ranga R:dd1. D,istrict. at L.B.Nag.irr. I.,r disposal in accordance with law. 14. I'h: I,rincipal Family Court Judge, at [: yderabad, Kalpatharur rr complex, shall transmit the entire original record in F.c.o.P'r'ro. j(fi5 of 2024,dury indexed, ro rrre L\dditionrl r.amily Court Jurigr:. Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.fjagar, tr,ref.erably within a p"-ric,rl of one month from the date of re<:eipt oi.rr copy of this order

15. P<:ndin.r miscellaneous applications, if any, shal I stand closed. Thcre r;hall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/- A.SREENIVA ASqISTANT R S/\ REDDY EGISTRAR ."" To, SECTIoN OFFICER '1. The Court of .tuctrre pr Hyderabad. " '' ' ' incipal Family court, Kalpatharuv.r ccmplr.,x,

2. The Court ofJuoce art L.e.NIsri, Hriff5[ri"o,,ional Family court, Ransa Reddy district at

3. One CC to SRI V )/ADU KRTSHNA SAINATH, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Cop er; 7' Pcsd/oh HIGH COLIFII' DATED:09 t}1,lzAZs ) i: \, :, \; 't (r,(' 11 rttl 2U5 3 A \+ \.!t-s' I (TCH eO ORDER TRCMP.No.tiS of ZO2S ALLOWING THH TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANE cI[-IS PETITIoN / / I sr/t/{