Hence, praved that the present petition is devoid of merits vs Courts ere called upon to consider the plea of trctnsfer, the

i{ON'BI-,ll SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No. 160 of 2025 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Pet ition is filecl seeking transfer of D.O.P.No.15 of 2024 lrom tht: file of the learned Principal District Judge at Bhadradri liothgudem to the file o1'Family Court Judge, H.r,derabad at l(alpataru

2. Heard, Sri N. Indrasena Redclv, Iean-recl counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajagopallavar-r Tavi, leanrt--d counscl lor the respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that marriage of the petitioner u,ife u,as solemnized with the respondent- husband oo 29.06.2023 at l(othagudem Club at llhadradri Kothagudem District as per thc Christian rites and rituals. Out of their rvedlock, they are blessed with one male child. Few days after the marriage respondent behaviour changed drastically and harassed her with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs. 1O,0O,OO0 I - aod rvhen the petitioner couid not fulfill thc same, the respondent ar-rd his family members stal'ted harssing her ph-vsically, mentallv, socially and emotionally and necked her out from mal.rimonial J -i- 2 LNA, J TrCllP.No.l60 of2025 home on 13.08.2023, since then she uras compelled to reside at her parental house

4. It is further sLlbmitted that the parents of petitioner arranged a pancha-r'at on 14.1O.2O23 to re-conciliate the marital ties but the respondent \vas ',.ery adamant and did not yield to the vuords of the panchayat members. Thus petitioner filed complaint belore the W.P.S. North Zone (Hyderabad) Police Station in turn police have registered a case vide Crirne No.34 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024 for the offences under Sections 498-4, 323, 406, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the respondent and his family membcrs and a,fter the investigation, police filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.6878 of 2024 on the file of the XV Additional Metropolitan MagisLratc at Hyderabad and the same is pending. It is further submitted that in view of domestic violence thc petitioner filed D.V.C.No.120 of 2024 on the lile of the il l Metropolil-an Magistratc at Hyderabad against the respondent and his family members ald also filed a maintenance case vide M.C.No. 123 of 2024 before i I I I l'\"'1 l / i \;/' \'o l60 oJ )t)); the I Additional Family Court Judge, Hl,derabad at Kalpataru Complex seeking maintenance.

5. It is lurther submitted that to pressurize the petitioner and her family members, the rcspondent with false allegations got registered a crime and t re same is pcnding '"idr: S.C.No.140 of 2024 for the offcr-ices under Sections 4'2O.294 (b), 506 read u,itl.r 34 ol IPC, Section 3 (f ) (r) (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Amerrdment Act. 2015 (Act I ol 2O 16) on the lile of VII Special .Jrr<1ge for trial ol' Cases under SCs & ST's (POA) Act, 1989 cum Ill Ariditional l) istrict Judge, Khammam

6. It is r:ontended that the respondent filecl D O P.No.15 of 2024 for divorce on the file of Principal Distnct. Judge at Bhadradri Kothagudem only to harass the petitic,r-rer and it is further contended that petitioner will be subjected to harassmel-rt if she appear before the said Corrrt. It is further submitted that petitioner is the mother of 11 months child and undergone cesareart (C Section) operation rrn d it is difficult lor the petitioner to tr.avel from ,l I,NA. J TrCLlP.No.l60 of 2025 Hyderabad to Bhadradri l{othagudem as distance betu,een both the places is about 300 kilometers and has to take care of her minor son and tl-rus prayed to transfer D.O.P filed by the respondent from Bhadradri Kothagudem to Hyderabad.

7. Learned counsel lor petitior-rer contended that in the transfer proceedings of matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the lvife has to be considered vis-a vis the convenience of the husband, and therefore, the request of the petitioner-vvife needs to be considered. ln support of the said contentions, the learned counsei for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I I Gargi Konar u. Jagjeet Singht.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that tl-rc respondent is working in the office of Panchayat Secretar5r in Kothagudem and he has to discharge his duty and it will be difficult lor him to travel from Bhadradri Kothagudem to Hyderabad and also \_",..,p.*--r ' (2005) 11 Supreme court c-ases 447 --7r tjI ) It"\ ) I6t)o[)tD5 l'\"1' J contended that not only this D.O.P.case, ther:e is also another casc liled against the petitioner and l-rer family members u-iri<:h is pending before the III Aclditioneil District Court, Khammam, to which also petitioner has i1t appear. Hence, praved that the present petition is devoid of merits ar-rcl is liable to be dismissed.

9. The F{,.rnble Supreme Court in NCV Aishutaryct Vs A.S.Saravana Karthik Shc2 held as follou s: "9. The cardinal pinciple for exercise of pou'er wtder Section 24 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure is that the ends of justi<:e should demand the transfer of tLrc suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matimonial matters, tuhereuer Courts ere called upon to consider the plea of trctnsfer, the Courts haue to take into consideration tlrc economic sounrlrr,zss of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and tLreir beLnuioural pattem, tfeir standard of life pior to the manriage and subsequent thereto and the circu.mstantces of both the parties in eking ottt their liueliLnod and under wtnse protectiue umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Giuen the preuailutg socio economic paradigm in tte Indian societg, generallg, it is the uif<:'s conueruience tuhich must be looked at while cons id e rin g t ra n sfe r. " '? ?022 SCC Online SC 1199 (r TrCMP.No.l60 of 2025 1N.4, J

10. The principle of law laid dori,n by the Hon'ble Suprcme Court in N.C,V.Aishwa.rga-'s ca.se 13ra cited supra), has been reiterated bv thc High Court of Bombay in Deuika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deuika Jagprakash Buttepatil u Dhiraj Sunit Pati|, and observecl as under:- "ln a country like India, important decisions suclr as marriage, diuorce are still taken tuith tLrc guidance and blessinqs of elciers it the familg. For a ladg to trauel alone for the proceedings to a Coutl u;lLere the fate of h.er mariage is going to be decided uLithout ang family member would definitely be a matter of concerrl and cause not onlg physical inconuenience but also emotionaL end p s g cholog ical inco nu e nie nce " . 1 1 . Further, the High Court of Bornbal, 1n Priganka Rahul Patil a. Rahul Ra tindra Pati 11 follou'ed the principle laid down in iV. C. V.Aishutarya's case (3*1 cited supra) alld Dettika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jagprakash Buttepatil's case (4rh cited supra), and l-rcld as follor,r's:- 3 (zo23scg " (2023 SCC Qf,Line Bom 1926) Online Bom 1982) I - 1 lil \lL' \o l6a ol )tt]5 l\.-1. J "The underlAing pinciple gouerning the proceedings under Section of the CPC, is that conuenience of the uife is to be prefered ouer the conuenience of the husband. "

12. Thus. thcre are catena o[ decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the eflect that in matrimonial matters/ disputes, while conside'ring thc applicalior-r lirr transler of the proceedings from one Court to another (lourt, the Courts must prefer the convcniencc of the rvife olc'r- the convenience of the husband.

13. A pcrusal of the record disclose that petitioner is a resident of ].lvderabad and she has liled M.C.llo.123 ol

202.1, Crime No.34 of 2024 and charge sheet sheet was filed n'hich is numbered as C.C.No.6B7B ol 2024 and D.V.C.No. l2() r>f 2024 belore the Courts at Hvderabad. It 1S specificalll contended on behalf ol petitioner that thc respondent rvith an intention to harass the petitioner, D.O.P is fik:d before the Principal District .ludge at Bhadradri Kolhagudem. It is further contended that in viei,i- of long distance of 3O0 kilometers between Hl derabad 'fr( lt'lP No.160 of2025 LNA, J to Bhadradri Kothagudem and also because o[ her minor chiid, it is difficult for the petitioncr to appear in D.O.P belore the Principal District Judge at Bhadradri I(othagudem and as respondent is appearing before the Courts at Hyderabad, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if H.M.O.P is transferred from Bhadradri I(othagudem to Hyderabad and in fact, it rvould be advantageous if the D.O.P is transferred to l[_vderabad as all the cases would be at Hyderabad.

14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case i and in the light of the principlc iaid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is inciined to accede to the request of the petitioner-lvife seeking transfer of the case.

15. Accordingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is a11ou,ed and D.O.P.No.15 of 2024 pending on the lile of the Principal District Court at Bhadradri Kothagudem, is r'r'ithdrarvn and transferred to the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad at Kalpataru, for disposal in accordance with iaw. i I I I I I 9 LNA,.I l)'C 11P No.l60 of 202 5

16. The lt'amed Principal District Judge at Bhadradri lioth agr-r11c n-r, shall transmit the entire original record ln D.O.P.No. lt of 2024 duh,, in6"""0, to the Judge, Famil-v Court, I{vdcrabad at I(alpataru preferably u,i1hin a period of one month lrom the date of receipt of a copy oF this order. 17 Penrling miscellaneous applications, il anv, shall stand closcd. There shall be no order as to costs SD/-M.NAGAMANI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge at Bhadradri Kothagudem 2. The Family Court Judge Hyderabad at Kalpataru 3. One CC to Sri N lndrasena Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate [OPUC] ,5. Two CD Copres / ABK/PSI, I I HIGH COURT DATED: 1810612.025 ORDER TRCMP.No.160 o.2025 ALLOWING THE TRCMP 2 {r's- z?y'a'45 ? 5 BIT 202I ,I ,'t t1,...'')\:--y' -....-- . =:-ri'