High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying' Il?t L *h" circumstances s i J q .,' q: t T,A?;*t t ; t? ;t* :: :X, ff I f ,i:' !F,.!j " "r,,oli,iiii i[:t!"j.ll;"3:l[n;;:*';,; irvol]'"u'a txarpataru comprex' at Purani Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' M' VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD Counsel forthe Respondent: Ms' VANI KANDARPA The Court made the following ORDER: tated in to StaY Hon'ble haveli) {! -7 HON'BLE) SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANsF.ER cIVIL MISC ORDER.. USPETITION No. 98 of 2o.25 This Traesfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed seeking transfer of FC.oP.No.3I of 2o2s pending on the fi,e of I Additionar Family Court, Kalpataru Complex at puranihaveli, Hyderabad to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Wanaparthy District. 2. Heard Sri M.Vf ay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Thouglh, Ms.Vani Kandarpa entered appearance, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. Therefore, the Tr.cMp is being disposed of basing on the material on record. 3. The brief facts of the case, shorn_off unnecessary details, required for adjurlication of this Tr.C.M.p., are that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 76.02.2021 as per Hindu Rites and Customs; that immediately after marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial house; that out of their wedlock they were biessed with a baby girl on 29.O1.2022; thz.t soon after the birth of baby girl, the respondent artd his family mernbers started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally for a<rditional dowry; thsl the respondent was already married and got divorce from the lirst wife only because she gave birth to a girl child. Z It is averred that the petitioner's mother is working as 4. maid/ sweeper in Rao's coliege at Wanaparthy District; that the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner' her mother and her brother betore P S'Borabanda' which was registered as Cr.No.949 of 2024 under Sections 115(2)' 351(2) r/w'3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and they were subjecterl to harassment by the Police; that unable to bear the harassment' the petitioner lodged a compraint before the p.s.wanaparthy against the respondent and his family members and the police registered Cnme No'33 of 2025 under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the same is pending on the hle of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy; that the respondent filed FCOP'N o3L of 2025 seeking divorce before the Judge, Family court, Kalpataru complex at Hyderabad' It is further averred that the petitioner is residing with her mother at wanaparthy, along with her child and that she is dependent on her mother' therefore' she cannot travel along with the minor child from Wanaparthy to Hyderabad' to attend the Court proceedings in FCOP'No 3 I of 2025 ' Hence' present Tr'CMP is filed'

5. It is relevant to refer to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of trre CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings' which is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed bY various High Courts' :q ,7 -)

6. The Horr,ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishtuarya I/s. A.S.Sarauana Karthik Sha'r held as follows: " The car iinal principte for exercise of power under section 2a of the Cod.e of Ciuit procedure is that tLe end_s of justice should demand. tfuz transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceedin,T. In matrimonial matters, u,thereuer Courts are called upcn to consid.er the ptea of tran-sfer, the Courts haue to take in;to constderrttion the economic sound_ness of both the parties, the social th.e slluses and' their behauiourttt pattem, ,n:':::^': manriageand.subseque:r;#:::::*":::::"::_:T both the p.,arties in eking out their liuelihood. and under tuhose protectiue umbrella theg are seeking tLteir sustenance to rife. Giuen tle preuo ing socio_ emnomic paradigm i,z the Ind)an societg, generallg, it is the utife,s conuenienc<: uthich must be looked at tuhile consideing transfer. "

7. The principle of law laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Ai.shwarya,s case (Jrd cited suprq.), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay n Devika Dhiraj patil Nee Devika Jagprakash Buttepatil a. Dhiral Sunil patip, and observed as under:- "In a country tike India, important decisions - such as marriage, d.iuorce are sti taken uitlL 'tlte guidance and. blessings of eld.ers in the ' 2022 SCC Online sc 1199 ' (2023 SCC OnLine Bom ..926) 4 famitg. For a lady to trauel alone for tle proceedings to a Coutl ulrcre tLrc fate of her mariage i-s going to be rlecided uithout ang familg member uould deftnitetg be a matter of concem and caTtse not onlg phgsical inconuenience but also emotional and Psg chological inconuenience '" Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priganka Rahul 8. Patit a. Rahul Ravindra Pati9 foilowed the principle laid down inN.C.Y.Aishtoarya,scase(3..lcitedsupra}and'DeuikrrDhiraj Patil Nee Deutka Jagptakash Buttepatil's case (4n cited supra), and held as follows:- "The underlging pinciple gouerning the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC' is that conuenience of the utife is to be prefened ouer the conuenience of tlrc husband'" Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble g. Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect tJlat in matrimonialmatters/disputes,whileconsideringtheapplication for transfer of ttre proceedings from one Court to another Court' the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband' ./ 3 (2023 SCC online Bom 1982) 5

10. A perus;al of record would disclose that the petitioner filed Tr. CMP primarily on the ground that she is residing with her parents along with her minor child; that she has no independent income and is dependent on her mother, therefore, it is difficult for her to travr:l from Wanaparthy to Hyderabad, along with the minor child, ro appear in FCOp.No.3 7 of 2025, on each date of hearing by cov,:ring a distance of about l5O kms. Further the complaint fired by the petitioner vide crime No.33/2025 is pending before rhe I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy 11 In the fac:ts and circumstances of the case and further, in vrew of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court ;rnd various other High Courts in the aforesaid Judgments that the convenience of the wife has to be given prioritSr/preferenc e over the convenience of the husband, this Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the ()p are justifiable and therefore, this Tr.CMp deserves to be allowed.

12. Accordingly, Tr.C.M.p. is ailowed and FCOp.No .3I ot 2025, pending on the lile of I Additional Family Court, Kalpataru Complex, Hyderabad, is transferred to the Court of principal 6 Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy District, for disposal 1n accordance with law.

13. The I Additional Family Court, Kalpataru Complex, Hyderabad, shall transmit the entire original record in FCOP.No.31 of 2025, duly indexed, to the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy District, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. B. SARASWATHI UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Additional Family Court, Kalpataru Complex' Hyderabad 2. The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy , Wanaparthy Dist 3. One CC to SRl. M. VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Ms. VANI KANDARPA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies f( HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 I l ":::'='r -'''='= ,fit'"".: : r; ':l\, /.k--',c..-.. // < .- ,. 19 SEP zffi ..^ (, .i:- ,I !: *., li ' '. -'i )... * L t- .:. 'i / ORDER TRCMP.No.98 of 2025 ALLOWING TIIE ]'R,C MP. WITHOUT COS'fS *(tPA a &F'