The High Court · 2025

_1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ortne pet,ti6n,ir'JHigh ig11a* be preased to stay of all further proceedinos pursuant to o.p.No. a,-ag or zozq of the fire of r Addr. Family court Judge KJrpataru at Hyderabro p"na,ns disposar of the Transfer petition lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Between: E:i;ltfl h:yjsryrh*f :ft :,?i?:#:in"."iit8i":l#ff :y/f eR/.Fa, And Busa Rajashekhar, S/o Viiay Kumar, Aged 41 years, Occ. Software Emplovee R/o PIot No. 56, Ftat No. Ft.' gl^"!gdy; j"e-rlLr'ni]irilnt, pnrr"_Z"Hliie"tT";y. chanda Nagar, Hyderabad_s0O os01- --"-' ' -"' .'.' HespondenU petitioner Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the p"ii.on, inliigt Cor.t may Le pt;.;," y:*i9]!9 tnterim orders passed on tZtOZZnZS tn tA ruo 1 of 2O2S in TRCMp No 62 of 2025 and to pass Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. K. KRISHNA VENI Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. NIKHAT SAJIDA The Court made the following ORDER: I I o ,--) HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.62 of 2025 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer FCOP.No.669 of 2024 pending on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Kalpataru, Hyderabad to the Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Ms. K.Krishnaveni, learned counsel for petitioner, and Ms Nikat Sajida, learned counsel for respondent

3. The brief facts of the case, shom-off unnecessary details, required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., as averred by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Tr.C.M.P., are that he and respondent are husband and wife; that their marriage was solemnized on 1,4.05.2006 at I{yderabad; that they were blessed with a female child; that subsequently, disputes and quarrels on trivial issues arose between him and the respondent, as such, the respondent-wife filed OP.No.669 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Family Court, Kalpataru, Hyderabad, seeking divorce and also filed MC.No.27 of 2024 on the file of Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally; that further, the .-r 2 LNA, ] T.CMP.No.6z of 202 5 petitioner filed FCOP.No.276 of 2024 on the file of Additional Famity Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally lor restitution of conjugal rights; and that all the said cases are pending

4. The petitioner-husband further averred that presently, he is residing at Chandanagar, Hyderabad and the respondent is residing at Kethaki Sangameswara Colony, Sanga Reddy and as such, ilthe case-FCOP.No.669 of 2024 pending on the file of I Additional Family Court, Kalpataru, Hyderabad is translerred to thc Additional Family Court at Kukatpally, Hyderabad, it will be convenient ibr both the parties and hence, prayed to allow this TTCMP

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit, submitted that petitioner IS residing at Chandanagar, Hyderabad and is a softwarc engineer and hence, due to his hectic work and the long distance between his place of residence and the Court at Kalpataru, Hyderabad, it is very difficult lor him to attend the Court proceedings at Kalpataru, Hyderabad on each and every date of hearing of the FCOP.No.669 ol 2024 and thercfore, leamed counsel prays the Couft to transler the FCOP.No.669 of 2024 pending on the file I Additional Family J LNA, J T|CMP.No.62 ofZ02s .Court, Kalpataru, Hyderabad to the I Additional Famity Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, where two other cases, viz., MC.No.27 of 2024 and FCOp.No.276 of 2024are pending. 6. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent_wife submitted that the respondent is residing along with her parents at Sangareddy and she is wholly dependent on her old aged parents lor sustenance ofherselfand her daughter and therefore, it will be financial burden on her parents and further, also inconvenient for her to travel from Sangareddy to attend the Courl proceedings in the Court at Kukatpally on every date ofhearing. Learned counsel further submitted that Op and DVC filed by the respondent_wife are pending in the Courts at Kalpataru, Hyderabad and in view of existence of Integrated Family Courts Complex at Kalpataru, Hyderabad, which are exclusively lor matrimonial disputes, if all the cases pending between the present parties, i.e., Op hled by the petitioner/husband for restitution of conjugal rights and MC filed by the respondent in the Courts at Kukatpally are transferred to the courts at Kalpataru, Hyderabad, it wourd be convenient for both the parlies to attend the Court proceedings in the said cases. By *-contending thus, leamed counsel prayed to transfer MC.No.27 of I . ,l - \ \ \. 4 L\A, J T.CMP.No.62 of 2025 - 2024 and FCOP.No.276 of 2024 pending on the file of Additionat Family Cour1, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally to I Additional Farnily Court, Kalpataru, Hyderabad.

7. This Court gave its eamest consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and persued the record

8. The present application is filed by the husband seeking transfer of FCOP on the ground of inconvenience for him to travel from his place of residence to attend the Court proceedings at Kalpataru, Hyderabad. On the other hand, the respondent-wife filed counter seeking transfer of the cases vice versa i.e., from the Court at Kukatpally, Hyderabad to the Court at Kalpataru, Hvderabad

9. The grounds on which the petitioner-husband sought for transfer of the FCOP are untenable and deserve no consideration.

10. It is settled principle of law and that there are 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 lor transfer of the proceedings from one Court to 5 LNA, J T|CMP.No.6z oI202S another Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. I l. l{owever, it is pertinent to note that the present TrCMp is fi led by the petitioner-husband, therefore, the respondenrwife is not entitled to grant of any relief as sought for by her in the counter

12. Furthermore, a bare perusal of record reveals that Op filed by the respondent-wife seeking divorce and the Op filed by the petitioner-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights are pending in the Courts at Kalpataru and Kukatpally, respectively. Obviously, the issues involved are to be decided in both the said OPs would be interconnected as the findings given in one Op will havc bcaling on the findings given in the other Op. Therefore, in the interest ofjustice and to avoid conflict of findings/opinions and decisions, this Court deems it appropriate and justifiable il the aloresaid OPs flled by both the parties are tried by one Court. l3. Accordingly, this TrCMP is allowed and FCOp.No.669 of 2024 pending on the file of the I Additional Family Courr, Kalpataru, Hyderabad is transferred to the Additional Family Cour1, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. LNA, J T.CMP.No 62 of20)S \ 6 '14. The Judge, I Additional Family Court' Kalpataru' Hyderabad, shalt transmit the entire original record in FCOP.No.669 ol 2024, duly indexed, to the Judge' the Additionat Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally' preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order. On such transf'er, the Judge, Additional Family Court' Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, shall club FCOP'No'669 and 276 of 2024. conduct joint trial and dispose of the matters in accordance with larv

15. Pending miscellaneous apptications, if any' shall stand closed. There shalt be no order as to costs' //TRUE COPY// sD,- E A.V.S. PRASAD TY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, I Additional Family Court' Kalpataru' Hyderabad' 2. The Judge, Additional Family Court' Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally 3. One CC to Ms K KRISHNA VENI' Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Ms NIKHAT SAJIDA' Advocate [OPUC] w 5. Two CD CoPies kuligh SEH1Ro 14 14: c o 2 3 iutl 2r[5 t C, * oeHcTAsID {' t HIGH COURT DATED:09/06/2025 ORDER TRCMP.No.62 ot 2O2S ALLOWING THE TR. C.M.P 1 ? L