Smt. Kota Narayanamma @ Nagamani v. Kota Sobhan Babu

Petition under Section 1 51 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in H.tM.O.P. No.33 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nakerekal. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent :SRl SUDINI SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER HON'BLI] SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFFR C'lVlL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.l'0 of 2025 ORDER: This lr.ar.rsfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is fikrd seeking to transl'er H.l\4.O.P.No.33 of 2024 on the tlle of the lr:rtrned Senior Civil Judge. \-akerekal to the file of lcarned Senior Civil Judge, Kodad.

2. Heard Ms. Krishnamahi, learncd counsel lepresenting Sri P.Nagendra i{eddy, Icarned counsel for the petitioner rtn lecord and Sri Sudini Srinivas Reddy, learned counSel for the resprtndent

3. The Briel'facts leading to tilling of the present 'fr.C.M.P are that the nrarriage of the petitio ner-rvife was solemrrized with the respordentliusband on 16.05.2009 at Chikatigudern Village, Kethepalli NIandal, Nalgonda District, as per the rrevailing customs in their community and out of wedlock, they were blessecl r,r'ith one daughter. However, soon after rnarriage. differences arose betrveen the petitioner and respondcnt and the petitioner u,as subjected to physical and mental haras;srment and was;necked out fi'om the matrimonial house and she is pr-esently I \ \ Z Ll\4,.) T|.CMP.No.70 oJ 2024 residing at her parent's house along with her daughter. The petitioner lodged a complaint in Crime No.250 of 2023 for the offence under Section 498-4 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dorryry Prohibition Act, 1961 before Munagal.a Police Station and after completion of investigation, thb police fi1ed charge sheet and case is numbered as C.C.No.1l4 of 2024 and the same is pending before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. The petitioner filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2024 before the leamed Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad and the same is pending. Meanwhile, the respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.l9 of 2023 before the leamed Senior Civil Jrrdge at Nalgonda and subsequently, the same was transferred to Nakerekal and renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024.

3.1. It is further averred that at present, the petitioner is taking shelter in her parent's house along with her daughter and she is financially dependent on her parents. The respondent only to harass the petitioner has filed the HMOP at Nakerekal. It is further averred that it is difficult for her to travel alone from Kodad to Nakerekal, to attend the Court proceedings on each ) LNA, J 1'.(MP.No.70 of2024 date of healing, which is burdensome on her parents. ltr those set of circumstances, the petitioner filed the present Tr.C. \{.P

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner apart from the averments made in the aflldavit has contended that the respondent is appearing in both the matters i.e., C.C and D.V.t which ale pending befiore the learned Judicial Iirrst ClaSs Magistrate. at Kodad. Theretbre, no inconveniencc will be caused to thc respondcnt to attend the Courl procee,lings and hence, prayed to allolv the present TT.CMP

5. This Court considered the subrnissions made by learned counsel fcrr the petitioner and perused the material avrrilable on record.

6. The underlying principle governing the procer:1ings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the casc, app,eal or other proceedinrs, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in a catlna of .iudgrnents and the same was followed by .,.rlious High C our ts \ {..ffi f1 ,-.. / / t t I I I i : i i I I i 4 LNA, J TT.CMP-No.70 of 202,1 (

1. The Hon'ble Suprerne Courl in NCV Aislwarya Vs. A.S:Saravana Karthik Shat held as follows: " The cardinal principle .for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that th.e ends bf justicc slnuld demand the transJer of' the suit. appeal or otlrcr proceeding. In matrimoniaL matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea o/ n'ansfbr, the Courts have to talrc into consideration the economic soundness of both the porties, the social strota of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, tlrcir standard oJ li/e prior to the marriage and subsequent tltereto ond the circum.stonces of both the parties in eking out their Livelihood and under whose protective wnbrella the.y are seeking their sustenance to life. Givett the prevailing socio- economic paradigm tn the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's cont,enience which must be looked at while con.sidering transfbr. "

8. The principle ol taw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in N.C.V.Aishwurya's case (3'd cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhirai Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhirai Sunil PafiP, and observed as under:- 1 zezdcc online sc 1199 z (2023 scc online Bom 1926) ) LNA. J I ..CtrP.No.70 of2021 'ht a country like India, important decisiott.t suclt os marriage, divorce are still taken with th,t guidanc:e and ble.ssings of elders in the/ttmill,. F'or a lady to travel alone /or the proceeclings io a ( Utrt't wherc thc JotL ul ltcr. t arr.ittgC a (rrl/,:, to be decided without uny, .fantilt rnember x,ottil deJinitel.y be a matter of concent and cause no. onl.t physical incont,enience but also ernotiorttt,l nnd p.svchological inconven ience. "

9. Further, the High Courl ol Bombay in pri.yanlru Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravintlt a Patilt fbltowed the principle laid down in N. C. V.Aisltwarya's case (3'.d cited supra) and, DeviAu Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil,s case (41h cited supra), and held as fbllows:- "The nulerlying principle governing the proceeclings under Section 21 of the CtrC, that cont,enience ol the u.ife is to be preJbrred over the conveniertct ol the lntsbctnd. " ^^

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme (lourt and other High Courls to the ef-fccr that in matrimonial na tters/disputes, white considering the altplication fransfer of the proceedings from one Court to anothr:r Court, 3 12023 SCC Online Bom 1982) I ',i,'l 6 t-NA..t Tr.CMP.No.70 of 2021 o the Courts must give pref'erence to the convenience of the wife over the convenicnce of the husband 1 l. In the present case, a perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is seeking ttansfer of the H.M.O.P. filed by the respondent from the file of leamed Senior Civil Judge, Nakerekal to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kodad, on the ground that she is dependent upon her parents and for every hearing, she has to take assistance from her family members' Therefore, it is difficult for her to travel along with minor daughter from Kodad to Nakerekal Court on every date of hearing

12. Also, it is relevant to note that the cases viz., CC and DVC between the parties are pending befbre the Courts at Kodad, whereas HMOP filed by the respondent-husband is pending before the Court at Nakerekal.

13. It is represented that thc respondent is appearing in CC and DVC pending at Kodad, therefore, no prejudice would be 1 ,l i1 c4E1F4@ ,r --./ ,/ 7 LNA, J 'tt.a I'.No.70 of2024 caused to the respondent if HMOP is translbned fi'om rlakerekal to Kodad

14. Thereflole, in view of the underlying principle enunciated \ by the Hon'blc Supreme Court and various other High ,llourls in the afbresaid judgments that the convenience of the petitionerTrvife has to be given priolity/preference over the convenience of the respondent/husband, this TT.CMP dcselves to I I be allowed.

15. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.33 of 2024 or the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Itlakerekal is transferred to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge. Kodad, for disposal in accordance with law

16. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nakerekal, I'lalgonda District shall transmit the entire original record in IIMOP No.33 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kodad. Suryapet District preferably within a period of one month fron.r the date of receipt of a copy of this olirr' IJ LNA. J Tr.CMP.No.70 of 2024 t7 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shali stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, I '1. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nakerekal. 2 The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kodad. 3. One CC to SRl. p NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4 One CC to SRl. SUD|NI SR|N|VAS REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies 5 0 I Y{ Pcsd/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 1t ( t( 1 0 rt]l 2025 I \J() 1' * * ORDER TRCMP.No.70 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION }( I i I Il