Fligh Court of Bornbay in Devika Dhiraj Patit Nee Deviktt Ja.yprilash Buttepilil v. Dhiraj Sunil patil

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M P K ADITYA The Court made the following: ORDER /'/ ,/ l. HON'BLE SIrl JUSTICB LAXMT NARAYANA .'\l-lSHEl"l'Y TRANSITI)R ClVII- MISCELLANIlOLlS P['l'l'llQ]!llr I 04 oI2025 ORDER: 'fhis'l-r.rnsfcr Civil Miscellancous Petition is 1i cd scckinc Lo tlansler HMC)l'.No.8 of 2025 pending on the file rl' thc Scr.rior' Civil Judge , l'cddapalli to thc Irarnily Court at Intt r rirtccl lran.rilv Court Cornplcx. Hyderabad ?.. IJcard SI.i M.Vijay Kr.ruar Goud, learnecl -'otttlscl lbL petitioner and Sri lvl.t'.K.Aditya, lealrtccl colLnsel lot t ':potrtlc,nL

3. 'fhe bljel' lacts of the case. shorn-olT Llllllec! \ ii.ir') cle iails- required firl adjudication of this -l r.C.M.P., as tl crretl iu the alfldavit fiied in slrppofi of thc l'rcMP, are that the rctitiorter nnd respondent ate wil-e and l-rusband; that thcir I lilrrir.lBU \'' ils solernnized on 2l .10.2021 as pcl I Iindu lites aud .:Lrstours; tilal- soon after the marriage, the petitioner joincd thc Inalrilnortiill company of thc respondent; and thereafter. unab't to bcll thc: physical and mental harasstnent mcted out by her il thc hartds o1' the respondent, she lodged a complaint against h i rr belbre Lhe Women Police Station, Central Zone (I{yderabacl . rvhich u'as registered as ui casc in Crir-ne No.89 o1' 2024 for lhc oflcnces I i I I I I I I I I I I I l 2 LNA, J T|CMP.No.l0l of 2025 punishable under Sections 498-4 and 506 IpC and Sections 4 and6 ol Dowly Prohibition Act; that the petitioner also filed DVC.No.44 o1- 2025 on the file of IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ilvdelabad; and that respondent filed HMOP.No.g of 2025 lor divorce before thc Senior Civil Judge, peddapalli and all the said cascs are pending. -l I. I'hc petitioner averLed that she is residing with her parents at Sccunderabad and as such, it is difficult for her to travel fron.r Sccunderabad to Peddapalli on each and every date of hearing of I IN4OP to attend the Court proceedings.

3.2. The petitioner further avered that respondent is working as Softr,vare employcc at Hyderabad and residing with his parents at Ilvderabad, therefore, if HMOP is transferred from the Court at Peddapalli, no prejudice would be caused to him and prayed to allorv the TTCMP.

4. Learned counsel for thc petitioner, apart from reiterating the avenrents made in the affidavit, submitted that the criminal case and DVC filed by the petitioner against the respondent are pending at Ilyderabad and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to respondent if the I1MOP is transfelled as sought for and in fact, it -v./l l' * I 3 /-r\ I, J rlP.^o.l01ol )(1)5 ^ would be cottvenient for the respondent, who : rt)sidirlB a1 Flyderabad, and accordingly, prayed to allou' the 'fr.('\lP.

5. Per contra, Ieartted counsel [ttr respondcrlt , Lhrllittcd thrrt petitioner is an employee and she can afIord to lraveI Lo I'cdclapalli tiorn Secunderabad, whereas the resporldent, I t l)rcsL-I1t, is r"rnernployed and is residing witli his parents at Peddrr rrrlli, as stre lt. it rvould bc btu'den on him to travel liorn Peddapalli t r llvclcrabatl. Ilc lirrther srrbn-ritted that no case' is made otlt li l tllnsler o[- HN4OP as sorrghl lbr by the petitioncr ancl hcnce. t rc lr.(.'\'ll' r: Iiable to be disrnissed.

6. It is relevant to reler to the r-rnderlying princirlc govctnin-"- thc proceeclings under Sectior-r 24 of the CI)C secki;rr: ttuttsli'r rrl' the case, appcal or other proceedings, which is enur e iatccl bl Lhc Horr'ble Suprt:rle Cour.t in a catena o1'judgmcnts antl Llrc sanlc \'!as tbllou,cd bv various Iligh CoLrrls.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aisltu'rrr!'u L's. ,7.-9. Saravans Kerthik Shalheld as follows: "The cc,rdinal principLe /br exercise o/ powcr ut tti(,r ,Sc( tiotl 24 o,r'71ru Code oJ Civil Proceclure is thal lhc en,l ttl .jtrstitc shottld demand tlrc transfer of tlrc suil, oppe;r rtr r.ttlter t 2022 SCCqnline sC 1199 4 LA'A, J T|CMP.No.I01 of 2025 ! proceeding. ln matt.inonial matters, wherever Courts are calLe(l upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to lukc into considerotion lhe econontic soundness of bott,t the purtic.s, tlrc social strola of the spouses ancl their belmvioral pallern, their standord of li-fe prior to the marriage and suhscquenl tlterelo and llrc circuntstances of both lhe parties in eking out llrcir livelihood and under whose prolective untbrella tltey are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian sociery, generallv, it is tlte wiJb's convenience which must be looked ut wltila considcring tratn[er. '

8. 'l'he principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in N.C.V. Aishwar))a's case (3't citetl supra), has been rcitcrated by the Fligh Court of Bornbay in Devika Dhiraj Patit Nee Deviktt Ja.yprilash Buttepilil v. Dhiraj Sunil patil2, and obscrved as under: - "ln a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divorce are still laken with the guidance and blessings of eltlers in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court where the .fote of her marriage is going lo be decided without any fantily member would deJinitely be a matter of concent and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psyc ho log ical inconve nie nce. " 12023 SCC OnLrne Bom 1926) 5 l'\ t,I ttL',1I P- \'o- lltt dllt)lj

9. Futtl'rer, the High Courl of Bombay in Priyt'nku Rultul Potil v. Rahul Rwintlrt Putilt follorved the principl: laid doun in N. C. V.;lisltruuq'a's case (3'd cited supra) and Detiku Dhiruj Putil Nee Deviktr lo-yprakrch Butteputil's case (4'r' r itecl sr-rpll). and held as fbllorvs:- ''',''ltL' untlo l.r,ing principle governing the proce? ltngs utttlc, ,\ection 21 of the CPC, is lhaL corn'enier tt ctf tltc vi.fc is lts be preferred over lhe convenier t, of tht lt,t:;hond. " 10, 'l-hr,rs thcrc are catena of decisions of t rc I{on'blc Suprernc Llorrrl and other High Courts to the el ect that in rnatrimonirrl rnatters/disputes, while considering the applicaLiorr tirr transf'c' o l' thc proceedings from one Court to arr,,ther (-'oLrlr thc Clourls rn-rsL gi'"'e prelerence to the conveniencr: cii'the ri i1.-. ovcl the cc,nvenience of the husband I l. I'his -t'r'.C.M.l' is filed principatty on the gr(,rind rhat rhc both the pctirioner and respondent are working at lJlderabad; that petitionel is residing with her parents at Secun,l -'rabad; and that the DVC and crirninal case filed by petitioner ax pencling lt Hyderabad, tlrc'rcl'ore, it would be convenient for bo._lr Ll-re partics '1zozi' soc onlire Bom 1982) l 6 LNA, J T.CMP.No.104 of.,025 ::: to attend all the cases at I1yderabad, if the FII\4OP is transferred 1l'orrr Senior Civil Judge, peddapalli to the Family Courl at I n tc grated F-arn i ly Courl Com p I ex, Flyderabad.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circunrstances ol. the casc and fufther, in view of the underlying principle enunciated b1, the Hon'ble Suprcrne Court and various other High Courls in thc aloresaid judgments that the convenience ol the rvife has Lo bc given priority/pre l-erence ovet the convenience of the hLrsband, this Coult is of thc considered vie*, that the petitioner Iras rnade out a case for transfer of the FCOp filed by the rcslrondent ancl therefore, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed. ll. Accordingly, this Tr'.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOP.No.8 o1' 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapatli is transferred to the Family Court at Integratcd Family Courr ('onrplex, Hyderabad, lor disposal in accordancc with larv.

14. The Senior Civil Judgc, Peddapalli, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOP.No.8 of 2025, duly indexed, to the l'arnily Court at Integrated Family Courl Complex, Hyderabad, pref'crably within a period of one rnonth from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. w/ I I I 7

1.\ l,./ 7iCMP.No.l0! (4 )Ds

15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stancl closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ;D/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASIJSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Senior Civil Judge Court at Peddapalli District z. The Family Court lntegrated FamilyCourtCompllx, Hyderabad District.

3. One CC to SRl. M VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD Advocate []PUCI 4. One CC to SRl. M P K ADITYA Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies fPK/psl HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 ).. .J 0 4 rrtr 2u5 7 ORDER TRCMP.No.104 of 2025 TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWED ,l> 1,\f w,,.n 6*$t'