Smt v. Niharika, Wo. vs Praveen Kum r, Aged about

Sri. V. Praveen Kumar, S/o. VaraRa Business, R/o. 4-91lB, New Hafeerpet, Kondapur 500049 tnder, Aged about 34 years, Occ. arthanda Nagar, Opp. RTO Office, ...PETITIONER Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P Praying that in the circumstances Court may be pleased to transfer stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig the FCOP. No. 1960 of 2022 pending on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Family Court, Family Court at Hyderabad t the Court of the Family Court at Secunderabad in the interest of justice ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 'f OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayi g 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 in FCOP. No. 19 0 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Family Court, Family Court a Hyderabad pending disposal of the present petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KARTHIK M DHANU Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. G RAJEN AR PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No. t22 of 2o25 ORDER: This Transfer Civil M iscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer IrCOP.No.1960 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Judge, Il-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad to the Iearned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.

2. Heard Sri Karthik Madhanu, learned counsel for petitioner ar-rd Sri G.Rajendar Prasad, learned counsel for responden t

3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details, required for adjudication ol' this Tr.C.M.p., as averred in the affidavit filed in support of ttre Tr.C.M_p., are that petitioner and respondent trre wile and l.rusband and Lheir marriage was performed ort 29.01.2017, as per Hindu rites and customs prevalent in their communiry; that after marriage, she joined matrimonial house ol respondent, horvever, few days after the marriage, the respondent and his parcnts started harassing the petitioner ph1'sically and mentally for additional dowry, and in view of the continuous harassment, petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent and his familv members, before the S. H.O, Women [).S.Begumpet, Hyderabad, and on tha't -fIR.No.5 of 2O2t u,as registered. Subsequently, the 2 petitioner has filed a petition u dissolution of marriage and O.P.No. 129 of 2022, seeking to grant an amount of Rs.25,00,000/ -, towards permane t alimony, before the Familv Court, Secunderabad. The respo dent has also hled. a petition uide O.P.No.1960 of 2022, see ng for divorce, before the Il,Additional Family Court, Hyde abad, and hence prayed to transfer the O.P.No.1960 of 2022 to the frle of Judge, Family Court Secunderabad, to be tried a ng with O.P.No.729 of 2022.

4. Learned Counsel lor thc pe tioner as well as the learned Counsel for respondent fairly sub itted that both the petitioner and respondent have filed O.P, seeking same relief in two different Courts, and thus, it i appropriate that both the petitions be adjudicated upon and decided by the same Court to avoid confl icting decisions.

5. Further, it is relevant to re r to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under ection 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the casc, appeal or ther proceedings, which is enunciated bY thc Hon'ble Sup me Court in a catena of judgments and the same was follo ed by various High Courts.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour in NCV Aishwarya Vs.A.S. Sorauanrr Karthik Sharheld as | 2022 Scc ontine sc 1199 l "The cardinol pinc:iple for exercise of pou.ter und_er Section 24 of the Code of Ciuil procedure is that the ends of jttstice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceedilg. ln matrimoniol motters, uthereuer Courts are called upon to consid.er the ptea of transfer, the Courts haue to take into consid.eration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and. their behauioral pattent, their standard of life pior to the marriage and. sttbsequent thereto and tLLe circumstances of both the parties in eking out their liueliltood and under u.those protectiue umbrella theg are seeking their sustenance to life. Giuen the preuailing socio- economic paradignt in the Indian society, gene.rallA, it is the utik,s cortuenience tuhich must be looked at uthile consid.eing transJer.,,

7. The principle of law laid down by the Hon,blc Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishraarya,s cdse (3rd cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj patil Nee Devika Jagprakash Buttepatil u. Dhiraj Sunil patip, and observed as under "In a country like Ind.ia, important d.ecisions such cs mat-riage, diuorce are still taken tuith the guidonce and. blessings of elders bt the familg. For a lady to trauel alone for the proceedings to a Court tuhere the fate of her marriage is going to be decid_ed. u.tithout ang family member uould clefi.nitely be a matter of concent and cause not onlA phgsical 12023 SCC Online Bom 1926) 4 ._ - ,l inconuenience but a p sy cholog ical inconu eni o emotional and nce." g. Further, thc High Court o patil a. Rrrhul Rauind.ra Fati Bombay rn Priganka Rahul followed the principle laid down in N.C.V. Aishtttarya's cas (3rd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deuika Jdgp kash Buttepatf I's case (4tt, cited supra), and held as follows "The underlying pin proceedings urtder Sectio conuenience of the tuife i the conuenience of the hu Ie gouerning the 24 of the CPC, is that to be prefened ouer and."

9. Thus, there are catena f decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters / disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the pr another Court, the Courts m ceedings from one Court to st give preference to the convenience of the wife over the c venience of the husband.

10. For the foregoing rcasons and further, in view of the underlying principle cnunciated the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid j udgments that the conveniencc of the wife has t be given priority/ preference over the convenience o[ the husb nd, this Court hnds that the grounds urged by the pe t-itioncr eeking transfer of the FCOP r(2023 SCc Online Bom 1982) are justifiable and allowed. therefore, this Tr.CMp dr:serves to be

11. Accordingly, this l.r.C.M.p. is allowed and t.COp.No. 1960 of 2022, pending on the file of Judgc, Il_Adcli(ional Family Court, I{yderabad, is transferred to the Famrll. Court, at Secunderabad, for disposal in accordance with larr.

12. The learned Judge, II_Additional Family Court. Hyclerabad, shall transmit the entire original record in FCOP.No. 196O of 2022, dulS,indexed, to the lile ot rhe learned Judge, Familv Court, at Secunderabad, preferatrl,r. r,r,ithin a period of one month from the date of rcceipt o[ a copy o[ this

13. Pending miscellancous applications, if any, shali stand closed. There shall be no order as Lo costs. s EENIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, ll Additional Famity Court at Hyd 2. The Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad. 3 One CC to SRI KARTHIK MADHANU Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRl c RAJENDAR PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies MKN/ABK .{t}-r,., HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 ORDER TRCMP.N o.122 ot 2025 1l1t ' /4 \r '€ c k ll 12 rug 2o6 U, i)1 Sr,,., I Ctl -, * -.y' ,-/ ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIV!L MISCELLANEOUS PETITION