The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya v. A.S.Sqravana Karthik Shstheld as follows

stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Withdraw the F.C.O.P.No. l98 of 2024 pending on the file of the ll Additional District Judge- cum-ll Additional Family Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal and to Transfer the same to the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Mancherial. lA NO: 'l OF 2025 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 including appreance of the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.198 of 2O24 pending on the file of the ll Additional District Judge- cum-ll Additional Family Judge Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal, pending disposal of the above Transfer CMP. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Kondaparthi Sudhakar S/o. Rayalingu Aged about 38 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee Rio Plot No.401, Placement Homes Mahagayathii Nagar, Suchitra Quthbullapur n/andal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. AND Eguda Rajanl Wo. K.Sudhakar D/o. Mondi, aged about 29 years Occ Housewife, R/o. H. No.3-67l4Bl2 Balaji Town Shrp, Timmapur Village, Gadderegaddi Kayathanapalli Municipality Mandamarn Mandal, Mancherial District. ...PETI IONER/RESPONDENT ...RESF,ONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in thr-. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C<>urt may be pleased to vacate the order dated 1110412025 passed in I A No.1 of Z02S in Tr.C.M.P.No 156 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C. Hari Preeth Counsel for the Respondent: Smt. M. Anjali Devi The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CI\{L MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 156 of 2025 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of FCOP.No.198 of 2024 pending on the file of II Additional District Judge- cum-ll Additional Family Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial

2. Heard SLi C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.M.Anjali Devi, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details, required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., are that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 01.10.2017, at Singareni Community Hall, Ramakrishnapur, Mancherial District, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community; that soon after marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent; that out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child on 15.11.2019; that thereafter differences arose between the petitioner and respondent; that the petitioner was subjected to harassment and ultimately she was forced to leave her matrimonial house; and that she lodged a complaint with the P.S.Ramakrishnapur, Ramagundam Commissionerate, ot 21.08.2024 1n \ \ 2 FIR No.128 of2024 under Sections 498-,4' ofIPC ani Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; that respondent filed FCOP.No. i 98 of 2024 on the file of II Additional District Judge-cum-ll Additi,rnal Family Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri district at Medchal, seeking divorce. It is averred that the petitioner has no independent income and she is dependent on her parents; that she has to take care of her rninor child; iLnd that the distance between Medchal Malkajgiri District to Mancherial is 100 Kms., therefore, she cannot travel, alone. Hence, present Tr.CMP. is f,rled

4. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent contending that the respondent is working as a private ernployee at Qutht,ullapur; that he is a diabetic patient; and that in view of his health condit on it is difficult for him to travel from Quthbullapur to Mancherial, a dist,rnce of 250 kms., if the matter is transferred, therefore prayed to disrniss the Tr.CMP. In support of his corrtention the respondcnt also enclose.l rnedical record to substantiate his claim that he is a diabetic patient.

5. It is relevant to refer to the underlying prinr iple goveming the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking tlansfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catela of judgments and the same was follor;:ed by various High Courts \ w.-wr .)

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S.Sqravana Karthik Shstheld as follows: " Tlte cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice should demand the transfer o.f the suit, appeal or othei proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their stdndard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto und the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose .protective umbrella tltey are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. "

7. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunit Patif , and observed as under:- "In a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court where the fate of her maffiage is going to be decided without any famtly ' zo22 scc online sc 1199 ' (zozl scc onLine Bom 1926) 4 j member would definitely be a matter o.f cot r:ct n and cause not only physical inconvenience but also 'notional a nd psycho Io gic a I inco nve nience. "

8. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanku Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patif lollowed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwar?a's case (3'd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patit Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (4th cited supra), and held as follows: - "77rc underlying principle governing thc proceetlin11s under Section 24 of the CPC, is that corn,enience of the :ti.[t' is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. "

9. Thus, there are catena of decisions ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect thiLt in matrimonial matters/d isputes, while considering the application for tlansfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the f ou rts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the co l\renience of the husband.

10. A perusal of record would disclose that the pctitioner filed TT.CMP on the ground that the petitioner is residing v'ith her parents; that she is dependent on her parents; that she has no indt'pendent income 3 12oz: scc onLine Bom 1982) 5 and sho has to take care of her minor child; and that the distance between Medchal Malkajgiri District to Mancherial is 300 kms., therefore, she cannot travel alone on each date of hearing to appear in FCOp filed by the respondent. Whereas the respondent contended that he is a diabetic patient; that in view of his health condition he is unable to travel the long distance of 250 kms. from Quthbullapur to Mancherial. I I . For the foregoing reasons and further, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl and various other High Courts in the aforesaid Judgments that the convenience of the wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the husband, this Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the HMOP are justifiable and therefore, this TT.CMP deserves to be allowed. I t \ t

12. Accordingly, Tr.C.M.P. is allorved and FCOP.No.lg9 of 2024, pending on the file of II Additional District Judge-cum-Il Additional Family Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal, is transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Mancherial, for disposal in accordance with law. However, the Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial, shall not insist upon the presence of respondent on each date 6 of hearing unless the presence of respondent is requirt:d lor adjudication of the matter and recording his evidence, in view of his health condition

13. The II Additional District Judge-cum-Il Additional Family Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal, shall transrr it the entire original record in FCOP.No.198 of 2024,, duly indexed, to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial, preferably within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I To, //TRUE COPY// SE ON OFFICER

1. The ll Additional District Judge-cum-ll Additional :amily Judge lt/ledchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal

2. The Principal Senior Civil Judge Court at Mancherial. 3. The Station House Officer, Ramakrishnapur Police Station, Ramagundam 4. One CC to Sri C. Hari Preeth Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri M. Anjali Devi Advocate tOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies VIyPSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1810712025 ORDER TRCMP.No.156 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE TR.CMP ..-= r'1E Sr,r/ ( c^' 1 0 sEP 2025 ,/ /. ) ),. \