The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik ShaI held as follows

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 of H.M.O.P No. 43 of 2024 lrom the file of Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad, pending disposal of transfer petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELI,ANE OUS PETITION No.118 o 2025 f ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer HMOP.No.43 of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civit Judge, Adilabad to the Senior Civil Judge, Komaram Bheem- Asifabad District.

2. Heard Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy, learned counsel for petitioner. No representation lor respondent, despite service of notice on him, therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on the material available on record.

3. The brief facts ol the case, shom-ofT unnecessary details, required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the TTCMP, are that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was solemnized on 03.05.2014 at Goleti, Asifabad District, as per Hindu rites and customs; that soon after the marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial company of the respondent; that out of wed tock, they were blessed with a boy, who is now aged about eight years; however, she was subjected to physical and mental { 2 l-^'A, J TtcrtP :\o. t tS oI202s harassment by respondent and his parents and unal-,le to bear the same, she lodged a complaint against them belore r{r:bbarura police Station, Kcmaram Bheem-Asifabad District, which .vas registered as a case in Crirne No.273 of 2020 for the ofl.c rt:es punishablc under Sections 498-4 IpC and Sections 3 anrl 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but, the said case was compronrircl. -lhereafter, again the farnily members of respondent started arassing and torlured the petitioner for additiona! dor^.,rJi, thcr.r,Ibre. anothcr corrplaint was lodged by petitioner against resporrdent and his tbrnily members, which was registered as casc in (';.i re No. 146 or 2024 lor the offences punishable under Sections J:i, llg(l) r/rv -l(5)otBNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibrri,.,n.,\cr on rhe fi Ie of Rebbanna police Station, Komararn llhc:n_Asilabad District; and that respondent filed HMop.No.4 ] rrr' 2024 ror judicial separation before the Senior Civil Judge, Adilrrbad. 3.1. The petitioner further averred that she is res drng with her parents at Rekhulaguda, Rebbena Mandal, Konrrtrrrm Bheem- Asilabad District and is entirely dependent on them ,.c . lir.elihood; that she ha-s to take care of her son who is aged eight .u-,:ars, that the distance from l{ekhutaguda to Adilabad is about l()0 kms and as t 3 LNA, J T|CMP.No.t t8 ol202s such, it is difflcult for her to travel from Rekhulaguda to Adilabad on each and every date of hearing of HMOP to attend the Court proceedings and hence, prayed to transfer the HMOp as sought for.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit, submitted that there is threat to the life of petitioner if she attends the Court at Adilabad. He further submitted that respondent and his family members are already appearing before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Komuram Bheem-Asifabad, in connection with case in Crime No.l46 of 2024, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to respondent in the event of transfer of HMOP as sought for and prayed this Court to allow this TTCMP.

5. It is relevant to refer to the underlying principle goveming the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena ofjudgments and the same was followed by various High Courts.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik ShaI held as follows: ' 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 ! I I 4 LNA, J T CblP.No.l 18 oJ 202 s "The cardinal principle for exercise of power w.,d.. r Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjtrstice should tlemand the transfer of the suit, appeLtl or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever C',turls are callad upon to consider the plea of transfer, the t')ourts hove to take into consideration the economic soundnes:: of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their ltelrayioral patlern, th.eir standard of life prior to the mu', iapie and subs'equ(lti iiiereto and tlte circumstances of boti., itrc puriies in eking out their livelihood and under whosr: ltrotective tunitre!la they cre seeking their sustenance to li,it. ji,".en tlrc prevoiling socio- economic paradigm in the Inaic t sociely, gencra!!.,', ir is the vlir{s'5 g6n,,s?21.nce wkich m#t \e lcoked at while considering transfer. "

7. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'bk: Supremc Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (3'd citediupru). has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika D,hiraj Potil Nee Devika Jtyprakash Buttepalil v. Dhiraj Sunit Patif , and. observed as under: - '' In a country like India, importdnt decisiot.. s suclt os marriage, divorce are still taken witlt the guiclance and blessings of elders in the farnil.,. For a lady to travel alone for the proceeding,; ,o u ('ouri where the fate of her marriage is gr,iltq to ha decided without any family member x,outd 'zoz: $CC ontine Bom 1926 5 LNA, J TtMP.No.l lE of 2025 definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but dlso emotional and psychological inconvenie nce. " 8 Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Palil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil3 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra) and Devika Dhirai Patit Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (4'h cited supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. " g. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in rnatrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application For transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband.

10. This Tr.C.M.P is filed principally on the ground that petitioner is totally dependent on her parents for her survival and as such, it is financially burden on them and is also difficutt lor ){zozzTE ontine Bom 1982 f t 6 LNA, J T.CLI P.lio.I II of 2025 her to travel. along with minor child, more than I C I lans from Rekhulaguda to Adilabad to attend the Court prc,;eeclings in FMOP on each and every date of hearing of the saiC ,rase. 11. In view of the aforesaicl facts and circurnstances of the case and further, in view of the underlying principli: enunciated by the Hon'ble Supr-eme Court and various other IJi6rh Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the wife has to be given nr-iority,/pr-et-erence over the convenierrcc of the husband, this Courl is ol the considered view that th : petitioner has uradc out a case for transfer of the FCOp fited by the respondent and therefore, this TrCMp deserves to br: , llowed. 12. Accordingly, this 'lr.C.M.p. is allowed and l.il {Op.No.43 of 2024 or.r the file of the Senior. Civil Judge. z\.dilabad is transferred to the Senior Civil Judge, Komaram Bheen_Asifabad District, rbr disposal in accordance with law. 13. The Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, shall transnit the entire original record in HMOp.No.43 of 2024, duly in<lexed, to the Senior Civil Judge, Komaram Bheem-Asifabad Dislrir:t, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipi of a copy of this order. ( .a\ 7 Li,.t, J T.CM?.No t tt of )025

14. Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall srand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SO/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad 2. The Senior Civil Judge at Kumurambheem-Asifabad District. 3. One CC to SRl. GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies TPKfSL +,^ HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 , : ,,, ) \ ll 3 siP 20'fi .t -.'.' I '.sr,.r;,;11q "' ',r - .--:.- ---'--a;/' ORDER TRCMP.No.118 ot 2025 TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PE ITION IS ALLOWED 6 \