The Hon'ble Supreme Court in lilCV Aishutarya v. A.S.Sarquq.nq Karthik Shcr held as follows

Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C Prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Transfer the O.P. No.20 of 2022 filed before the Family Court Judge, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda to file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. lA NO: 1 F 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 O.P. No.20 of 2022 tiled before the Family Civil Judge, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda pending disposal of the above Petition. counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANNAREDOY ARAVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV The Court made the following: OROER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHET'TY TRANSFER CTVIL MISCELLANEO US PETITION No.77 of 2025 ORDER.. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of OP.No.2O of 2022 pending before the Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda to the Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy Distrct at L.B.Nagar

2. Heard Sri A.Aravind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the re spondent.

3. The brief facts of 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 18.06.2012, at CSI Church, RTC Colony, Nalgonda Town and District as per tndian Christian Marriage Act, 1872; tL,at soon after marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial company of respondent; that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a baby girl on 02.05.2013 and a baby boy on 03.12.2014. It is averred that she was working as a contract employee at Nalgonda; that the respondent started harassing the petitioner for additional dowry; that unable to bear the harassment meted out by the respondent, 1 the petitioner lodged a complaint with the po ice on O1.05.2O1g, however due to intervention of elders, she withdrew the said complaint, but the respondent has resumed hara.ssing the petitioner by sending defamatory letters about her char:,rr..ter to her superior oflicers at her workplace. Unable to bear such harassment, petitioner moved out from the matrimonial lrouse and started residing separately atong vrith her parents at Ragannaguda, R'R'District. It is further averred that the petirirner rrled op.No.2O of 2022 belbre the Family Court Judge, Nalgon <: a, seeking divorce; and that tire said oP is coming for cross-examir:ation. It is averreci that the distance betw,een Ra,ga Reddy district ro Nalgonda is I 15 kms.; and that she cannot travel such long disrz.r-rce along u,ith tu,o minor children. Hence, present Tr.CMp. is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent would sr.rbmit that the Op filed by the petitioner is coming for cross-exami:,ration, that at this stage, the OP cannot be transferred; and that ir-r fact, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for tralsfer and thus prayed to dismiss rhe Tr.CMp.

5. [t is relevant to refer to the underlying prin<:iple governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CpC seel<ing transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by the 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the sarne was followed by various High Courts.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in lilCV Aishutarya Vs. A.S.Sarquq.nq Karthik Shcr held as follows: " The cardinat priruciple for exercise of pouer under Section 24 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure is that the ends of justice shouLd demand th.e transfer of th,e suit, appeal or otLer proceeding. In matrimonial matters, whereuer Courts are called upon to consider ttte plea of transfer, the Courts haue to take into consideration tle economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and th,eir behauioural pattern, their standard of life pior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and th.e circumstances of both ttrc parties in eking out their liuelilaod and under whose protectiue umbrella theg are seeking their sustenance to life. Giuen the preuailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian societg, generallg, it is the taife's conuenience uthich must be looked at uthile considering transfer."

7. The principle of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in N.C,V,Aishuarya.'s ca.se (Sra cited suprrz), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Dedkq Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jagprakash Buttepatil u, Dhiraj Sunll PatiP, and observed as under:- ' 2022 SCC Ontine SC 1199 '? (2O2l6cS Online Bom 1926) 4 "In a country like India, important deci.sr,rns such as marriage, dtuorce are still taken ,:tith th_e guidance and blessings of elders in tltc familg. For a ladg to trauel alone for tlrc procee,c'ing s to a Court ruhere the fate of her marriage is octing to be decided without ang familg member uould def-nitelg be a matter of concern and c,zuse not onlll phusical inconuenience but also <,motional and psy chological inconuenience.'

8. Further, the High Court of Bombay in )rrlganka Rahut Patil u. Rahul Rarrindra PctiF followed the principle laid down in Ar.C. V.Aishwarya\ case (3.d cited supra) an<l Deuika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deuika Jagprakash Buttepatil,s case (4th cited supra), and heid as follows:- "Tlrc underlying principle gouerning the proceedings under Section 24 of *Le CPC, is that cort..,enience of the uift is to be prefened ouer tLrc conueni ence of tlrc husband." 9 . Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to thr: effect that in matrimonial matters/ disputes, while considerin6; the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court 1_r_, another Court, the Cotittq must give preference to the convenir:nce of the wife over the convenience of the husband. 312023 scc onLine Bom 1982) 5

10. A per-usal of record would disclose that the OP was initially filed by the petitioner before the Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda, in the year 2022; and that the matter is coming up for cross- examination of petitioner. It is the specific case of petiLioner that she is subjected to physical and mental harassment by the respondent; that the respondent is also harassing the petitioner by writing number of letters to the higher officials of the petitioner defaming her name, assassinating her character artd also threatening the petitioner; and that unable to bear the harassment of the respondent petitioner moved out from the matrimonial house and residing with her parents along with her two children at Ragannaguda, Ranga Reddy District and hled the present TT.CMP on the ground that she is dependent on her parents; that she has no independent income and she has to take care of her minor children; and that the distance between Ralga Reddy District to Nalgonda is 115 Kms., therefore, she calnot \ travel a-lone on each date of hearing to appear in OP No.2O of I 2022 alongwith two minor children. 1 1 . For the foregoing reasons and further, in view of the under\ring principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid Judgments ttrat the convenience of the wife has to be given priority/preference 6 over the convenience of the husband, this Cotrrt. finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seekjng transf.er of the Op are justifiable and therefore, this Tr.CMp deserves to lre allowed.

12. Accordingly, Tr.C.M.p. is allowed and Op.No.2O of 2022, pending on the file of Judge, Family Court, Nalgcnda District at Nalgonda to the Family Court, Ranga Reddy Distrjct at L.B.Nagar, for disposal in accordance with law.

13. The Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda District, r;hall tralsmit the entire original record in Op.No.2O of 2022, du1li indexed, to the Family Court, Ranga Reciriy District at L.B.Nagar., preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt ,)f a copy of this order. Pending miscellareous applications, if an,,-, shall starrd closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- A STIEENIVASA REDDY ASSII}TANT REGISTRAR 6 ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda District. 2. The Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. '{agar 3. One CC to Sri Annareddy Ara'rind Reddy, Advocate [OPtlC] 4. One CC to Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, Advocate [OPL.](-;l 5. Two CD Copies SR/GR Y+- HIGH COURT DATED:04/0812025 )\.. .i ri .::' ti .':,1 2s si 2025 \: *'::::. / , -....1: ,) \ NPNED TRCMP.No.77 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLI,NEOUS PETITION *r"nq* .h' Dl.