He High Court · 2025

T.Srikanth, S/o T.Kistaiah, aged about 37 1eqr9' Occ: Veoetable Vendor' R/o "-r'r"tiei 't;n'lq Suba" Reddv Buildings' H No e-6-e0/3, D3, nniJilt iii..ril pi,t rir"r'rrrrljoiri, ManovikaiNagar' Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Petition Under section 24 of the c.P.c. Praying that in the circumstances stateO in ifre affidavit filed iherewith, the High Court may be please.d to withdraw F.C.O.p.No. 192 oI 2024 no* penOing on the file of the Judge, Principal Family Cor.tCityCivilCourtComptex,sec-underabad'.totheCourtofJudge'Family corrt,Hrnr.konda,HanamakondaDistrict,havingcompetentjurisdictiontotry the same. IA NO:1 OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit titeo rn supfort of the peiition, ir,. Hign Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further prJceedings in f 'C O'p ttl o 192 of 2024 now pending on the file of the Judge, Fiincip'i Family Court' .City Civil Court Complex' iecunderaUad, pendiig disposal of the Transfer Petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' PR^ABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel for the Respondents: L HARISH The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CruIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.69 of 2O25 ORDER: . This Transler Civil Miscellaneous petition is fiIed seeking to transfer F.C.O.P.No. 192 ol 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court Judge, City Civil Courts Complex, Secunderabad, at Secunderabad to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Hanamakonda, Hanamakonda District.

2. Heard Mr. B.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Harish, learn€d counsel for the respondent

3. The Brief facts leading to filling of the present Tr.C.M.p are that the marriage o[ the petitioner wife was solemnized with the respondent husband on 26.O5.2008 at Erippagudem Vi11age, Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal District as per the prevailing customs in their communigr and soon after their marriage the petitioner joined with the company of respondent and out of their u,edlock, they were blessed with three daughters. It is averred that after birth of three ' daughters, the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental harassment for additional dowry for giving birth to daughters and was necked out from matrimonial house and that unable to bear the physical harassment and abuse by lA^ TrCn[P.No.69 of202: Z respondent, and his family members, for want of additional dowry, the petitioner lodged a complaint in FIR No' 195 of 2024 on 26.06.2024 before Ghanpur (W) Police Station' Jangaon District under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition' Act and the same is pending before Additionai Judicial First Class Magistrate' Jangaon. In the meanwhile, respondent herein frled F.C.O-P.No. 192 of 2024 on the hle of the learned Principal Family Court Judge, ' City Civil Courts Complex' Secunderabad, at Secgnderabad' It is lurther averred that at present' she is taking 3.1. shelter in her parent's house and is hnancially dependent on her parents and she has to take care of her children' Moreover, lhe distance between Secunderabad and Ghanpur (Station) is more than 150 Kilometres, therefore' it is diffrcult for the pctitioner to travel from Ghanpur (Station) to Secunderabad to attend the F'C'O P' In those set of circumstances, the petitioner filed the present Tr'C'M P' Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from 4. reiterating the averments made in the Tr'C'M'P' contended that the pctitioner has filed Maintenance Case before Principal/Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Station -) LNA. J TrCt{P.No.69 oI2025 Ghanpur and the matter is pending. Therefore, rl.the matter is transferred from learned principal Iramily Court Judge, City Civil Courts Complex, Secunderabad, at Secunderabad to the Court of learned Judge, Fami$ Court, Hanamakonda, Hanamakondzr District, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and further contencled that convenience of wife has to be considered as against the convcnience of the husband in the matrimonial mafter and hencc, prayed to allow the present Tr.CMp.

5. Per contra, learn'ed counsel for the respondent submitted that two elder daughters are under the custody of respondent and he is taking care of their needs and education, only younger daughter is u.ith the petitioner and further submitted thal only alter issuing notice to respondent, the petitioner has hled criminal case against respondent and further contended that transfer C.M.p. is liable to be dismissed.

6. Thrs Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record.

7. The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CpC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or 4 r,cMP.N".6e :;;i2- other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts. I I

8. Thc Hon,ble A.S. Saravana Kq.rthik Sho.l held as foiiows; Supreme Court in NCV Atshwaryd 7s. of the suit' ,, The cardinc s e ctio n r _ *", iil"!" 1,",7; ;::zL : : : r:::; ends of .justice should d.emand tn" tran. appeal or oth, proceed'ing' t' *otalk uthereuer ,"r; are called upon to tt'":;:'::n:;::':, transfer, th" c: haue to take into consideration the economrc "ounru* the sociat stratc, e7,^" ;::::,.::::r.,: r::::s, "'" ."'rl(Tutoltral pattem, their standard oi t;r- ^.." hfe prior to te marriage ttnd subsequent thert p a rti e s i n e ki n s= : : ::,:^; ; :,ff;' X. : :: "? n:: i;'"::::,";:*,,::.':;:,;:.::^,::::;:us,enance,o the tndian soc conuentence *n::'o' transfer.,, po'odi7* t must be looked at *nu"t3'"'llrn generanlrg, it ," 'n

9. The principle ol ]aw laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme court in N.c.v.Atshwarya,s case prd cited supra),has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Deuikq. Dhiraj 120 22 SCC Ontine SC 1199 l i i 5 LN.,I. J T.CttP.tto.69 oJ )025 Patil Nee Devika Jagprakash Buttepatil u. Dhiraj Sunit ,o1i1z, and observed as under:, "In a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, diuorce are still taken ttitLt the guidance and blessings of elders in the familg For a lady to trauel alone for the proceedings to a Court u_there the fate of her mariage is going to be decided u.dthout any familg member uould definitelg be a matter of concent and cause not onlg physical inconuenience but also emotional and p sg c holo g ical inconu e nie nce. "

10. Further, the High Court of Bombay in priganka Rahul Patil u. Rahul Rq.uind.ra patiF followed the principle laid down in N,C.V.Aishrtar:ya,s case (3.d cited supra) and Dedka Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jagprakash Buttepatil's case (4th cited supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying pinciple gouerning the proceedings under Section 24 of the CpC, is that conuenience of the uik is to be prefened_ ouer the conuenience of the husband.,, I 1. Thus, 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 L '(zoz '1zoz $€CC Online Bom 1926) 3 SCC Online Bom 1982) 6 T|CMP.Nq.69 of '1 application for transfer of [he proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Cour[s must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband'

12. The present Tr.C.M.P is fited principally on the ground that the petitioner is dependent upon her parents and she has to take care of her minor children and further the distance between Secunderabad and Ghanpur (Station) is more than 150 Kms- Thereforc, it is difficult for her to travel on each date of hearing. Further, for every hearing' she has to take assistance from hcr lamily members'

13. It is also relevant to note that the maintenance case between the parties is pending before the Principal/Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Station Ghanpur' whereas F.C.O.P hled by the respondent-husband is pending before the Court at Secunderabad.

14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of thc principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner-r,t'ife seeking transfer of the case'

15. Therefore, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Suprcme Court and various other / 7 L.\,.1. J T,C.vP..\'0.69 of )02j High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the petitioner/wife has to be given priority/ preference over the convenience of the respondent/ husband, this Tr.CMp deserves to be allowed.

16. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.p. is allon ecl and F.C.O.P.No.792 of 2024 on the file of the learned principal Family Court Judge, City Civil Courts Complex, Secunderabad, at Secunderabad is transferred to the Court o[ learned Judge, Family Court, Hanamakonda, Hanamakonda District, in accordance wit6 law.

17. The learned principal Family Court Judge, Citv Civil Courts Complex, Secunderabad, at Secunderabacl shall transmit the entire original record in F.C.O.p No. I92 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Court of learned Judge, Famil-\, Court, Hanamakonda, Hanamakonda District, preferably rvithin a period of one ( l ) month from the date of receipt of a cop-v of this order.

18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stancl closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Judge, Principal Family Court, City Civil Court Complex, Secunderabad. J ./

2. The Judge, Family Court, Hanamkonda, Hanamakonda District 3. One CC to SRl. PRABHAKAR BOM|V|AGAN| Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRl. L HARISH Advocate [OPUCj 5. Two CD Copies / MKN/PSL \q- wf::-" W&rr. HIGH COURT DATED:1810612025 ORDER TRCMP.No.69 of 2025 22 AIJE I ,-., \. \.'.:\ it- t/' ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION k --<aNa\' )