The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aislwarya v. A.S.Saruvonu Karthik Sfta'held as fbltows Tlrc cardinal principle for exercise o/

HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ,\LISHETTY TRANSI-tlll. CML NIISCELI,ANUOLTS PETI'I'ION r o.l2l of 2025 ORDER: -I'his l'ransler Civil Miscellaneous Petition i tiled seeking transfer ol'II.M.O.P.No. 122 of 2023 pending on thc llle of the Senior Civil .ludge at Mahabubabad to the Court .rf' the Family Cour1, Ranga Reddy District at I-.B.Nagar.

1. Heard Sri I).Balaji. lr'::r'nrrd ct-tunscl lirl rrc nL-titioncr Dcspitc serr ice of uoticc. tl)ijlc i:r riir i. i,r'cscrr tation r r bclralf olthc respondcnt. fherehrte, tl'tc rnattcl is being dispos.'r of basiug on the nraterial ;rvailahle orr rccord-

3. 'I'hc' brief facts ol- th.' case. sholn-oFf unnc(,'ssary details, required for' a<ljudication ol this Ir.C.N'l.P., are th:r thc petilioner and respondcnt arc rvife and hu:;band; that theil uralliage u'as solemnizcd on 08.rJ3.20 15 at Sairithi B.lid colk rc. Mothukur Road, Thirurnalagiri, as per Iiirrdu r-ites and cuslonrs; that after tnarriage cerelnonies, she ioined the uratlimonirr{ courpany of respondent at 'lh irurnalagiri, that tircy wcre bl .,.;cd r.r,ith two children out of their wedlock, however, soon thcre:rfter, the resp<qrdent starlcd halassing. thd ir(t,iit)lrr:r lrcntall.r rrrr.l plrysically 2 LNA, T.CMP.No.l2I oI2025 and she was necked out of the matrimonial house for want of \r.ss{tl \:r' :: additional dowry and that presently, the petitioner is staying with her parents; that the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.I22 of 2023 before the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, seeking divorce; that the petitioner is attending the above said proceedings and one of such Court hearing on 21.10.2024, when the petitioner, along with her minor child and her mother, attended the Court proceedings, the respondent personally taken away the minor child. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint and a case in Crirne No.383 of 2024 was registered against the respondent. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, minor child has been handed over to the petitioner. From then, the petitioner IS apprehending threat to her life from the respondent. Petitioner is living at long distance i.e., 3 i 5 KM., and therefore, it is difficult for the petitioner to attend H.M.O.P.No.i22 of 2023 at Mahabubabad, and she has taken care of two minor children and that she is depending on her parents,

4. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record j i t I I Ir 3 LN.4, J 'I tcltl P. No. I 2 I 0l 2025

5. The underlying principle goveming the prot :edings under I l Section 24 ofthe CPC seeking transler of the case. appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Suprt:r,e Court in a catena of judgments and the same rvas followed bl various High Cour.ts.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aislwarya Vs. A.S.Saruvonu Karthik Sfta'held as fbltows " Tlrc cardinal principle for exercise o/ pott'er trr lcr Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that tlrc e,'u's oJ justice slnuld dentand the transfer of tlze suiL, .tpp(t. L or other proceeding. In matrimoniol matters, wherever '-'ourts are called upon to consider the plea rtf transfer, tht i'ourls have to takc in.to consideration tlrc economic soutdne:;: of both the parties. lhe social strata o.f the spouses and theit" tehavioural pattern, lheir standard of life prior to the ntt, 'ria5;e and subsequent tlrcreto and the circumstances of botL, tlrc parties in ekin.g out their livelihood and under v,ho:t protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenonce to lili' Giten the prevailing socio- economic parodigm in llrc lrntan society, generally, it is the wife's convenience vhich ml,q be looked al while considering lransfer. "

7. The principle of lau, laid down by the Hon l.,le Supreme Courl in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited sapr(.'t, has been I zozz scc online sc 1199 4 LNA, T.CMP.No.l2l of2025 reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhirai Patil Nee Devikt Jayprakash Bufiepatit t. Dhirai Sunil PafiP, atd observed as under:- "ln a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divttrce arc slill taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court uthere the fate of her marriage is going to be decided without any familv member would de/initell; be a mattcr oJ'concern and cause nol only physical inconvenience btrt al.vo emotional and psycho logica l inco nve n ie n ce. "

8. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravintlra Palrf followed the principle laid down in N.C. V.Aishwaryt's case (3'd cited supra) and Devika Dhirai Paril Nee Devika Jayprakash Butlep il's case (4th cited supra), and hetd as follows:- "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Sectiott 2'l o-f the CPC, is thot conNenience of the u,tfe is lo be preJbrred over the convenience of the husband. "

9. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that 1n 'Z (2Q23 SCC Online Bom 1926) 3 120))scc onLine Bom 1982) 5 LNA, J ! t(,1IP-No.I2I of2025 matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering th<: appl ication for transfer olthe proceedings from one Couft to an<tther Court. the Courls must give preference to the conveniencc rf the wife over the convenience of the husband. Hence, this C,:rr_ rt deems it appropriate to ailow this Tr.C.M.P

10. The present TRCMP is filed principally on thr: ,lround that there is threat to her life from the respondent, if r,he attends hearing in H.M.O.P.No.l22 ot 2023 pending on thr: lile of rhe Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, and on previou, occas10n, the respondent has forcefully taken away minor chitd. Ibr which act, an FIR was also lodged against the respondent. .lr is fu rther the case of the petitioner that. the distance betu,eerr lJvdcrabad and Mahabubabad is 350 KM., and it is difficult lor h;.r ro travel along with her minor child on each and every adjrlr rrunent in H.M.O.P. No. 122 of 2023 and that she is depcndir_i on rl.reir parents.

11. In view of the underlying principle enunciatcd by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various other High Corrrts ir.r the afores{d judgrnents, the convenience of the petitioner. has to be given priority/preference over the convenience ofthe r:spondent ,xtatiai'. f) 6 T.CMP.N4.12l of 2025 and it would be .just and appropriate to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.l22 of 2023 pending on the hle of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad to the Court of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

12. Therelore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner- wife seeking transfer of the case

13. Accordingly, this Tr,C.M.P. is allowed and H.M.O.P.No. 122 of 2023 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad is transferred to the Courl of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, lbr disposal in accordance with iaw.

14. The Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No. 1 22 of 2023 , duly indexed, to the Court of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period ofone (01) month from the date ofreceipt of a copy ofthis order. - :en*e*+-'*.*E+F?ra97 ./ €*; ' 7 L!\'t' J n(:,VP.No.l2I of 2D5

15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any. shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs S,D/. L.VUAYA LAXMI ASISiSTANT REGISTRAR \ \{ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad 2. The Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L B Naqar 3. One CC to SRl. B BALAJI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies TPK/PSL w -27 ( }- HIGH COURT DATED: 1610612025 /a' (' \-\ r-11- 5r4 /6 -/, 27trPM ORDER TRCMP.No.121 of 2025 i t 065F4rcHEo * TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWED (, Kr*