The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Section 24 of lhe C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw and transfer the HM OP No. 218 ol 2024 pending on the.file of court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions. Judge, Mancherial, Adilabad to transfer the same to the Judge, Family Court, Hariumakonda where the FCOP, MC and Crl MP are pending, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY all further proceedings in HM OP No. 218 of 2024 pending on the file of court of the Principal Senior Civil J udge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, Adilabad, pending disposal of the above Tr. CMP. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY Counsel for the Respondent : SRI G SRAVAN KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA III,ISHETTY TRANSFER CryIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IIo.159 of 2o25 ORDER: This Tr;rnsfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is fltt j seeking transfer of HMOP.No.ll 18 of 2024 pending on the file of Pri:' t:ipal Senior Civil Judge cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherizrl, Adilabad t.o the Family Court, Hzr.numakonda

2. Heard Sri M Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for :tre petiLionr:r and Sri G.Sravan Kurnar, learned counsel for the responcle I r

3. The brief fzrcts of the case, shorn off unneccsszrr,' details, required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., are that the peti[ion,,t zrnd re spondent are wife and husl;and and their marriage was perforrrr,,rl on 21. ll.2O2O, at Singareni Mini Function Hali, Bhupalpalli Citt ; rhat soon after marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial home with the respondent; that out of their wedlock the petitioner corr::dived, however, during deliver5' tire child died in womb on 15.08.20:2 ; that thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental I r,rrassment; that unable to bear the harassment and humiliation, t)-rr . petitioner filed FCOP.No.3SO of 2024 seeking divorce and the same i:. pending on the hle of the Judge, Family Court, Hanumakonda; that d- c petitioner also filed MC.No.S2 of 2024 and the same is also pending Lt:fore the Judge, Family Court, Hanumakonda. It is averred that the '{rspondent flled HMOP.No.218 of 2024 seeking restitution of conjugrrl rights and the 2 same is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial. It is further averred that the petitioner is residing with her parents; that she is dependent on her parents for her survival; that she has life threat in the hands of the respondent; that in view of her health issues, it is difhcult for her to travel from her village to Mancherial, a distance of 300 Kms., to attend the Court proceedings in HMOP.No.218 of 2024 on every date of hearing. Hence, present TT.CMP is hled.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the afhdavit submitted that the respondent is appearing in MC.No.82/2024 as well as FCOP.No.350 /2024 whlcl:, are filed by the petitioner and pending belore the Judge, Family Court, Hanumakonda, therefore, no prejudice would be caused if HMOP.NO.2I 8 of 2024 filed by the respondent is transferred from to Mancherial; and that in fact, it is convenient for the respondent to appear in all the cases at one place, if HMOP hled by thp respondent is transferred and tried along with FCOP filed by the petitioner.

5. karned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner after filing FCOP and MC lodged a complaint against the respondent before P.S;Bhupalpally under Sections 85 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is registered as FIR.No.364 ol 2025; and that though the petitioner is residing at Bhupalpally, she is hling cases at two different places i.e. at Waralgal (MC.No.82l2024 and FCOP.No.3SO 12024) and Bhupalpallv (FIR 3 No.364/2O251, therefore, no grounds are made (:1 t and prayed to dismiss the Tr.CMP.

6. it is relevant to refer to the underlying prin<:i Jc governing the proceedings undt:r Section 24 of tlre CpC seeking tr,rrrsfer oI thc case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciaterl 1ty the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the sant. was tolloq,ed bv various High Courts.

7. Thc Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Ai shuarya I/s. A. S. Sarauana Kd.rthik Shar held as follows: " The cardin.al pinciple for exercise of pou.ter uru; zr Section 24 of the Code of Ciuil procedure is that the ends oJ -, tstice shoulti demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other Tt.oceecling. ln matimonial matters, tuhereuer Courts are . caltztl upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts haue, k> take into consideratiort the economic sound.ness of both tl,.t parties, the social strctta of the spouses and their behauiourai rltttern, their standard of life pior to the marriage and_ subsetiLtent thereto and the r:ircumstances of both the parties in eirt-,g out their Iiuelihood antd under uhose protectiue umbre,l,:t theg are, seeking tlteir sustenance to life. Giuen the prer., tiling socio economic .oarodigm in the Indian societg, generoit.,1, it is the u.tife's conuertience uthich must be looked. at uhik:. consideing transfer."

8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon,ble SrL: reme Court in lV. C.I/.Aish uarya's cq.se (Ard cited supra), has been _.iterated by ,)qz scc ontine 5c 1199 4 the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deuika Jagprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil PatiP, and observed as under:- "ln a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, diuorce ore still taken u.ith the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to trauel alone for the proceedings to a Court u.there tte fate of her marriage is going to be decided ttithout anA familg member utould defi.nitelg be a matter of conceftL and cause not onlg phgsical inconuenience but also emotional and psychological inconuenience."

9. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priganka Rahul Patil a. Rahul Rauindra PatiF followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishutaryc's case (3rd cited supra) and Dedka Dhiraj Patil Nee Deuika Jagprakash Buttepatil's case (4th cited supra), and held as follows:- | "The underlying principle gouerning the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, ,s that conuenience of the utife is to be prefened 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 matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the '7 IZOZ: SCC Online Bom 1926) ' (2023 scc online Bom 1982) 5 Courts must give preference to the convenience of tl r: wife over the convenience of the husband. 1 1 . A peru sal of record would disciose that thr Jretitioner f rled Tr. CMP on tlre ground that she is staying with h, t parents and dependent on her parents for her survival; that the cir; ance bet\,r,een her village to I\{ancherial is 300 kms., therefore it is cli-,icult for her to travel such a l:ng distance because of her health issur:s to attend the court proceedi:rgs in HMOp.No.218 of 2024 on every cl: [e of hcaring. Further it is also relevant to note that the MC.Nc, i1212O24 and FCOP.No.35O /2024 filed by the petitioner are pendin- on the file of the Judge, Farnilv Court at Hanumakonda, while tht: HMOp.No.2Ig of 2024 hled blr the respondent is pending on the I-rle. !.l.senior civil Judge at Mancrerial. Therefore, it is appropriate that l, rrh FCOp and HMOP are adjudicated and decided by the same ,l )urt to av()id conflicting Judgments. \

12. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumr;tances of the case and furthr:r, in view of the underlying principle ,,rrunciated lty the Hon'ble Su preme Court and various other High . I :rurts in the aforesaid Judgn-rents that the convenience of the wife h::r; to be givr:n priority/prefere,ce over the convenience of the husbzrr.l, this Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking tr ansfer of the HMOP are justihable and therefore, this Tr.CMp cle:j,:ryss 16 5s allowed. I ) \ \ t 6

13. Accordingiy, Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and HMOp.No.2l8 of 2024, \ pending on the file of Prl.senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, Adilabad, is transferred to the Family Court, Hanumakonda, for disposal in accordance with law.

14. The Prl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, Adilabad, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOP.No.218 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Family Court, Hanumakonda, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII D/- MOHD. ISMAIL E UTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER I To, Mancherial, Adilabad

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge_cum_Assistant Sessions. Judge, ?. Ih" J_u_dge, Family Court, Hanumakonda r. une CC to SRt AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY, Advocate tOpUCI 4. One CC to SRt G SRAVAN rUnrnn,-nor"""i"j<irluCf 5. Two CD Copies ADK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0 S!OB12O2S ORDER TRCMP.No.159 ot 2025 -'a' /1- .-.\- /a .-r 1, i.t .ll-) 2 { iitP 2025 .r,a , \r -a.j . ALLOWING THE TRCMP WTHOUTCOSTS \oLIlu'