The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Section 24 of lhe C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to withdraw the H.M.O.P No. 53 of 2024 on the file of the r,, : Senior Civil Judge Court, Nizamabad, at Nizamabad District and transfer the same to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar. r IA NO :1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the H.M.O.P No 53 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad till the disposal of the above Transfer CMP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V. Ramana Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A. Sanjeeva Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHBTTY TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 65 of 2025 ORDER: This Transfe' civil Miscelaneous petition is fired seeking transfer of HMOP.No.53 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nizamabad at Nizamabad District, to Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Sri V.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though, Sri A.Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel, entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and filed counter, there is no representation. 'fherefore, the matter is disposed of basing on materiar availabre on record.

3. The brief facts ol- the case, shorn_off unnecessary details, required for adjudication of this Tr.c'M.p., are that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on I 0.03.2023 at Sumangali Function ltall, IB Thandur, Mancherial District, as per Hindu rites and customs; that the respondent is working in the company situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, as software engineer and residing in a Hostel at Ameerpet, Hyderabad; that petitioner is an emproyee in the commerciar- Tax Deparlment, R.R.District; that both used to lead their marital life at native place of respondent in the weekends; that respondent,s brother took 1 2 LNA, J TrCLtP.No.6s of202; a a house at Doctor's colony, Saroornagar; and that both petitioner and respondent started staying in the said house along with respondent's brother and his wife; that since then differences and disputes arose between them; and that respondent, his brother and his wife starled harassing the petitioner, physically and verbally for additional dowry; that petitioner was subjected to continuous harassment, therefore, the petitioner started living separately at Hyderabad.

4. It is fuither averred that the respondent hted HMOP.No.53 of 2024 before the Senior civil Judge at Nizamabad for divorce; that the petitioner unable to bear the harassment, filed complaint and FIR.No.32l2025 in W?S(Rachakonda), Saroomagar, R.R.Distrct was registered under Sections 498-4 of IPC, under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further averred that the petitioner is presently working ai Junior Assistant in Commercial Tax Department, Ranga Reddy District, and the distance betrveen Ranga Reddy District to Nizamabad is about 200 kms.; that she cannot travel alone, all the way from Hyderabad to Nizamabad; that the respondent is also residing at Hyderabad and therefore, it is convenient for both the parties, if HMOP.No.53 of 2024 is transferred from Nizamabad to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L'B.Nagar. Hence, present TT.CMP is filed. J LNA, J T.CMP.No.65 of2025

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made i.r the affidavit submitted that respondent is working in a Software Company situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad; that in fact he is residing at Hyderabad, however, HMOP is filed ar Nizamabad, only to harass the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in Commercial Tax Department, R.R.District, therefore, it is convenient for petitioner as we, as respondent, if the HMop is transferred from Nizamabad to Family Court at R.R.District. Thus, prayed to allow the TT.CMP 6 In the counter filed by the respondent it is admitted that the petitioner working as Junior Assistant in Commercial. .l.ax Department. R'R'District; and that it is also admitted that the petitioner is residing at Meerpet, Hyderabad.

7. It is relevant to refer to the underlying principte goveming the proceedings under section 24 0f the cpc seeking transfcr of the case, appeal or other /roceedings, which is enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena ofjudgments and the same was followed by various High Courts 4 LNA, J TtCltIP.No.6i oI2025

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs' A.S.Saravana Karthik Shatheld as follows: " The cardinal principle for exercise of pov'et under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that tlrc ends ofjustice should demand the trander of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider tlrc plea of transfer, the Courts l'nve to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parlies, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to tlu marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life- Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wtfe's convenience which musl be looked at while considering lransfer. " g. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's cdse (3'd cited supra), has been reiter:ated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhirai Patil Nee Devika Jayprakaslt Buttepatil v. Dhirai Sunil Patif , and observed as under:- "In a country like India, important decisions strch as marriage, divorbe are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady lo travel alone -for the proceedings to a Court where the fate of her marriage is going to be decided without any family | 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 (2023 scc online Bom 1926) 'z 5 LN4, J T.CttIP.No.65 of 2025 member would definitety be a matter oJt concern and couse nol only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychological inconvenience.,,

10. Furlher, the High Court of Bombay in priyanka Rahul patil v. Rahul Ravintlra potil3 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwuryo,s case (3d cited supra) and Devika Dhiroj patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Bufiepatil,s case (4,h cited supra), and held as lollows:- "Tlte underlving principle governing the proceeclings uncler Section 24 oJ'the CpC, is that convenience of the wife i.s to be pre;fbrred over the convenience of the husband. ,, I l. 1'hus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in rnatrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application for tranifer of the proceedings lrorn one Court to another Court, the Courts must give prelerence to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. 12' A perusal of record would disclose that HMop. 53 0f 2024 fired by the respondent for clivorce is pending before the senior civir Judge at Nizamabad; that the petitioner is working as Junior Assistant, 3 1202: Scc online Bom 19g2) 6 LNA, J T|CMP.No.6t of2025 d' Commercial Tax Department at R.R.District; and that she is residing at Meerpct, Hyderabad. Further, the distance between R.R.District to Nizamabad is about 200 Kms.; that since the petitioner is alone at Hyderabad, she cannot travel all the way from R'R'District to Nizamabad; and that no family member is there to accompany her to attend the Court proceedings in HMOP. Therefore, this Courl is of the considered view that the petitioner made out a case for transfer of HMOP.No.53 of 2024 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad to the Famill- Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.nagar.

13. For the foregoing reasons and further, in vicw of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various othcr High courts in the aforesaid Judgments that the convenience of the wife I has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the husband, this court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the HMOP are justifiable and therefore, this Tr'CMP deserves to be allowed.

14. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP'No'53 of 2024, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nizamabad, is transferred to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar, for disposal in acco;dance with Iaw. '/ ./ - 7 LNA, J TtCLlP.tio.65 of202i

15. The Senior Civil Judge Court, Nizamabad, shall transmit the entire original record in tMOp.No.53 of 2024,duly indexed, to rhe Family court, Ranga Redd1, District at L.B.Nagar, preferably within a period of one month lrom the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no or.der as to costs. SD/. U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -l s ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge Court, Nizamabad, at N tzama bad District 2. The Family Court Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar. 3. One CC to Sri V.V Ramana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A. Sanjeeva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] s Two CD Cooies ' t-- I I *urntvst,lr5, r HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 (: -' \:. l> ,) i() '1,) 24 StP XE S r-. : Ciif,\-,.l- /' ORDER TRCMP.No.65 of 2025 ALLOWING THE TR.CMP rol.1 \rg