The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Section 24 of lhe C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw the withdraw the O,P.No.1787 of 2024 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court, Hyderabad and transfer the same to the Family Court, Hanumakonda. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stav all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in O.p.No.1787 o'f 2024 on the file of the Principal Family Cou(, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Tr.C.M.P. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI I SURENDER Counsel for the ResPondent : - - - The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY ORDER: Tr.C. M. P.No. 107 of 2025 This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filerl by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of O.P.No.1787 of 2024 from the file of the Prin,:ipal Family Court, Hyderabad, to the Court of the Family Court, Hanamakonda

2. Heard Sri Ili Surrender, learned counsel for the petitioner, no representation on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice and therefore, the matter is disposed basing on the material available on record

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present 'Ir.C.M.P. are that the marriage of the pctitioner-wife was solemnized with the respondent-husband on 25.08.2021 at Duggondi Village and Mandal, Warangal District, as per the prevailing customs in Hindu Religiorr; that after marriage. petitioner joined conjugal life with the respondent and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a baby boy. However, after some time, respondent as well as his parents started harassing the petitioner physically and menta{y to bring additional dowry of 20 lakh and wher-r she ."frr"dl to do so, she was expelled from the matrimonial house. 2 LNA, J Tr CMP.No.l07 o[ 2025 \ The petitioner filed a criminal case in Cr.No.89 of 2024 was filed at Subedari Women Police Station, Warangal, under Section 85 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also filed D.V.C.No.3 of 2025, under Section 72, 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domesbic Violence Act, 2005, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal fudicial Magisfrate of First Class, Warangal and the same are pending for adjudica tion.

4. Later, Respondeni filed o.P.No.1787 ot2024, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights before Principal Family Court, Hyderabad.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to matrimonial dispute, petitioner is facing mental trauma and depression and she is not in a position to travel from Warangal to Hyderabad on each and every date of hearing as she has to take care of her minor child. Further, the petitioner is apprehending threat tci her life in the hands of the respondent and his parents, if she attends the Court at Hyderabad. .-- I 3 Tr CllP.,\'o 107 of 202-; LJI,A J

6. Learned counsel for the petiticner further contended that respondent is appearing in DVC case at Warangal, therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if O.P.No. I7B7 of 2024 is transferred to the Principal Famity Court; Warangal, as both the cases can be adjudicated by one Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that respondent is resident of Mahabubnagar and O.P. is filed at Hyderabad showing Krishnagar, Hyderabad as address. 7 The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the t{on'ble Supreme Court in NCy Aishutarya Vs. A.S.Saraaana Karthik Shal held as follows: "9. The cardinal pincipb for exercise of porcer under Section 24 of the Code of Cioil Procedure is that the ends of justice slntLld demand tht transfer of the suit, nppeal or other proceeding. ln matrimonial mntters, ruhereaer Courts are cnlbd upon to consider tlrc plea of transfer, the Courts haae to take into consifurntion tlrc economic sottrulness of both the parties, the socinl strLtta of tlrc spouses and tleir behaaioural pattern, their sttndnrd of life prior to thc marriage and subsequent thereto anil tle circumstnnces of both the parties bt eking out their liaelihood and under uhose protectit'e umbrella thty are seeking their sustenance to life. Giaen tle preuailing socio- economic paradigm in the lndian socicty, generaLltl, it is the zoife's conaenience uhich must be looked at uhile r.onsidering transfer." \ ' zozz 4tc Online SC 1199 4 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.l07 of2025 {

8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishutarya's case (2,td cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Deaika Dhirai Patil Nee Deaika layprakash Buttepatil a. Dhiraj Sunil Patil2, and observed as under:- "ln a country like India, important decisions such as mariage, dioorce nre still taken uith the guidance nnd blessings of elders in the family. For a lndy to traael alone for the proceedings to n Court uhere the fate of her mnrriage is goin$ to be decided toithout any family member zoould defnitely be a mntter of concern and cause not only physical inconttenience but also emotional and psyrhologirnl inconoenie nce

9. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Piyanka Rahul Patil o. Rahul Raoinilra Patip followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishuarya's case (2nd cited supra) and Deaika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deaika layprakash Buttepatil's case (3.d cited supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying principle goaerning the proceedings under Section of the CPC, is that conaenience of the u'ife is to be prefened otter tlu anuenience of tht husband."

10. Thus, there are catena of decisiors of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in 2 rzoz: scc or[tr{e Bom 1926) I izoz: scc dnune eom 1982i / 5 Tr.CllP no 107 o1202) 1,N,1, J matrimonial ma tters/ disputes, while considering the appiication for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to ar-rother Court, the Courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband.

11. In the present, case, a perusal of the record would disclose that the petitioner has to take care of minor child and shc is also apprehending threat to her life in the hands of respondent and his family members and therefore, she is not in a positiorr to travel from Warangal to Hyderabad on each and every dak' of hear.ing with minor child. It is also represented by the counsel for petitioner that the respondent is attending DVC case' pending at Warangal and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to \ respondent.

12. Therefore. in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the petitioner/wife has to be given priority/ preferencc over the convenience of the respondent/husband, this Transfer CMp deserves to be allowed. 6 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No t07 of 202j t

13. Accordingly, rhis Transfer C.M.p. allowed and O.P.No.1787 of 2024, pending before the principal Family Court, Hyderabad, is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Hanumakonda, for disposal in accordance with law. 14. The learned principal Family Court at Hyderabad, shall transmit the entire original record in O.p.No.17g7 of 2024 d.uly indexed, to the Court of the Family Court, Hanumakoncla, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, it any, shall s tand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ---- t To, 1 The Principal Family Court, Hyderabad z. tne Family Court, Hanumakonda I _One CC to SRt I SURENDER, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER ADK/PSL W HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER TRCMP.N0.107 ot 2025 3 lriE s T4 ( o C) t: J, >: .i.: r,) 1 6 JUr 2025 a.- ,11r.6111) ,.._ -..-....:. ALLOWING THE TRCMP WITHOUT COSTS 1,1 4q