The Hcrn'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishuarya v. A.S.Sqrdudna Karthik Shar held as follows TIrc L

Sri Nakpal Pradeep. @ Pradeep Singh S/o-Nakpal tvlanohar' Aged about 34 *"r.. d.. Not w<irt<ii'g, nio H.No S:+Slt. Fakirabad Navipet Mandal i,lizamabad Dist ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER Petition Under Section 24 of the C P C praying that in the circumstances stated in ihe affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased to^order *itnOir*rf of the H.M.O.P Uo. t S ot 2025 whiCh is pending on the file of the Senior diuif-Lragu, Nizamabad and to transfer the same to the Judge' Family Court' fatpatarJComplex Near City Civil Court' at Hyderabad' IA NO: 1 0F 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine Hign Court may be pleased to stay oi"ii irrtn., froceedings including the appearance-of the petitioner/re^spondent in fl.fil.O.p.f.f".iS of 2026 which is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge' Nizamabad, pending disposal of the main ,Tr'C M'P Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B. VARUN representing HYDERABAD LAW FIRM counselfortheRespondents:KAVALIMANYAMKoNDA(Notpresent) The Court made the following: ORDER :f" HON'BLE SR.I JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CIVII, MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO N No.129 of2o25 ORDER: This Trar sfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2025 on the flle o[ Senior Civil Judge, Nizarnabad to the Court of Judge, Famill, e6s11, Kalpataruvu Cornplex, near City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri B.Varun, learnecl counsel for the petitioner. Though, Sri K.MzLeyam Konda, learned ccunsel lor respondent entered appearzrnce on behalf of respondent there is no representation. Therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on the rnzrterial available on record.

3. The Brief lactual matrix of the case is that the petilioner and rr:spondent are wife and husband ancl their marriage was solt:mnized oo 29.06.201g, at Maruti Gardens, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, as per the prevailing customs in their community and soon after their marriage, the petitioner joined the matr-irrionial house of respondent and out of their wedlock they were blessed with a boy. It is averred that the petitioner was sultjected to phl.sical and mental harassment by respondent anl his family members and was necked out from matrimonial house; that the petitioner hled Ir,I.C.No.40g \ 2 I,NA, J T.CMP.No.129 of2o2s of 2023 before the I Additional Family Court, City Civii Court at Hyderabad. In the meanwhile, respondent filed H.M.O.P.No. 15 of 2025 on the hle of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad for dissolution of marriage.

3.1. it is further averred that the distance between Hyderabad and Nizamabad is more than 150 Kms. Therefore, it is difhcult for the petitioner to travel from Hyderabad to Nizamabad to attend the H.M.O.P. and also she has to take care of her minor child. In those set of circums[ances, the petitioner hled the present Tr.C.M.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the Tr.C.M.P, contended that the petitioner's son has met with accident and he requires her personal care and hence, prayed to allow the present Tr.C.M.P.

5. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

6. The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court +-.\i-x--.+'t :/ ' _7 .,. LA'A, J TrC.vP.No.l29 of2025 in a catena o; jrrdgments and the same was followed by various High Courts.

7. The Hcrn'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishuarya Vs. A.S.Sqrdudna Karthik Shar held as follows " TIrc L:ar rlinal pinciple for exercise of pou.ter under Section 2,1 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure is that the ends oJ' jtt stice should demand the tra nsfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, u.thereu,zr Oourts are called upon to consider the plea of trans.fer, the Courts haue to take into consideration the economic .soundness of both the parties, the social strato of tlrc spouses and their behauioural pattern, their stantdord of life pior to the mariage and subsequerlt thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their liuelihood and under uhose protectiue umbrella theg are seeking their sustenance to life. Git'en tLrc preuailing socio- economic paradigm in tle Indictn societg, generally, lf is the Lutfe's conuenien,:e uhich must be looked at tuhile consideing transfer'. "

8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarga.'s case (srd cited supra), has been reiterated by tl-re High Court of Bombay in Detika Dhiraj \ I 2022 SCC Online SC 1.199 I.N,l..) TtCMP.No.l29 of 2025 4 Pqtil Nee Devikq Jagprakash Buttepatil u' Dhiro,i Sunil PatlP, and observed as under:- "In a country like India, impotlant decisions such as manriage, diuorce are still taken uith the guidonce and blessings of elders in the familg. For a lad'g to trauel alone for the proceedings to o Court uthere the fate of her mariage is going to be decided tuithout any familg member u;ould definitelg be a matter of concem and cause not onlg phgsical inconuenience but also emotional and p sg chological inconuenience '"

09. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priganka Rrzhul Patil a. RoLhul Rduindra Pati9 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3rd cited supra) and Deuika Dhirai Patil Nee Devika Jagprakash Buttepatil's case (46 cited supra), and held as follows:- .T'he underlging principte gouerning the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that conuenience of the uife is to be preferred ouer the conuenience of the husband'"

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in 'z (2023 SC, online Bom 1926) I (20236CC Online Bom 1982) 5 LNA, J T|CMP.Na.l29 of2025 matrimonial nlatters/ disputes, while considering the application for lransfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must give preference to the conveniencc of lire wife over thc convenience of the husband.

11. The present Tr.C.M.P is filed principally on the ground that the petiLioner is residing in Hyderabad and the distance belr.r,een H-vderabad and Nizamabad is more than 150 Kms and also she has Lo take care of her minor son who had met with accidenl anrl requires her personal care and therefore, it is difficult to erttr:nd hearing on each date in H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2025 before Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

12. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances; ol' the case ancl in view of the underlying principle enun<:iated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various othcr Hi61h Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience cf tl-re wife has to be given priority/ preference over the conveni:nce of the husband, this Tr.C.M.p. deserves to be allowed.

13. Accordingfy, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.lii of 2025 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad is lr:rnsferred to the Court of Judge, Family Court, 6 LNA, J Tin'tP.No.129 oJ2025 Kalpataruvu Complex, near City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, in accordance with law.

74. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2025, duly indexed, to the Court of Judge, Famiiy Court, Kalpataruvu Complex, near City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, preferably within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. s /. L. VIJAYA LAXMI st TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad.

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. 2. The Judge, Family Court, Kalpataru Complex Near City Civil Court, at ! Qne !C to Hyderabad Law Firm, IOPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Kavali Manyam Konda, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies M SzuGR HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 ORDER TRCMP.No.129 of 2025 ,.// .\ 10 Ltl ru5 .-, '.:. );::' ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION t0 \