The High Court · 2025

Petition underSection 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 in FCOP No.96 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court at Hanamakonda, pending disposal of the instant application before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Naresh Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER .,ri ,:.:i ,,.iul.i*;,!i*6 *^i6eisE#4i .:d.'ffi f''i HON''BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No. 178 of 2o25 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner'-wife seeking transfer of F.C.O.P.No.96 of 2025 from the file ol the Judge, Family Court at Hanamakonda, filed by the respondent-husband, to the Court of the Judge, Family Court Judge, Krrrimnagar.

2. He,ard Sri K. Naresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, despite srervice of notice. Hence, the matter is disposed of basing orr the materia.l available on record

3. Tht: brief facts leading to filing of the present Tr.C.M.P. are that the rnarriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the respond.ent-husband on 30.b5.2O19 at Varalaxmi Gardens, Karimnag5ar town, as per the prevailing customs in Hindu Religion. After marriage, petitioner joined conjugal life with the respondent. After the marriage, both of them lived happily for a period ol' six months and as time passed by, disputes arose between fhe petitioner and respondent and respondent started harassinll the petitioner to bring additional dowry for which she filed M.C.No.33 of 2024 on the file of Judge, Family Court, at t: 2 Tr.CMP.No. t78 af 2025 LNA, J ('' Karimnagar and also filed D.v.c.No.9O of 2024 on the fiile of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class (spl. Mobilp) court at Karimnagar against the respondent and his family members.

4. It is further submitted that the respondent fired F.c.o.P.No.96 of 2o2s before the Judge, Family court at Hanamakonda under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, i956 seeking to pass a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the petitioner herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that that petitioner is residing with her parents at Karimnagar and totally depending on her parents and brother for food, clothes and accommodation. Therefore, it is difficult to attend court proceedings at Hanamakonda without there being any source of income. Hence, prayed to transfer the F.c.o.p.No.96 of 202s, to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme court in ivcv Aishutarya. vs. A.s.s ansaanta Karthik Shal held as follows: r L 2022 SCC Ontine sc 1199 J LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.l78 of 2025 "9. The cardin.al principle for exercise of pouter under Se<:tion 24 of the Code of Ciuil Procedure is that the ends of -iustice shoutd demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proce:eding. In matimonial matters, whereuer Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts haue i.o take into corusid.eration the economic soundness o/ both the pdrties, the social strata of the sp()uses and tlrcir behauioural pattern, their standard of tife' prior to the marriage- and subsequent thereto arud the cir,:umstances of both the parties in eking out their liu<zlihood and under uhose protectiue umbrella they are see.king their sustenance to life. Giuen the preuailing socio- ec<tnomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is thet wife's conuenience which must be looked at uhile considering transfer. "

7. . The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C. V.Aishutarga's ca,se (znd cited supra), has been reiterate<l by the High Court of Bombay in Deuiko. Dhirai Patil Nee Der;,ika Jagprakash Buttepatil a. Dhirai Sunil PatiP, and obse,rved as under:- "In a coun.try like India, important decisions such as tnarriage, diuorce are still taken uith the guid"arlce and blessings of eld.ers in the \ family. For a tadg to trauel alone for the \- proceedings to a Court where the fate of her z IZOZZ SCC Online Bom 1926) 4 Tr.CMP.No.l78 of 2025 LNA, J R mariage is going to be d.ecided without ang familg member would. d.efinitetg be a matter of concerrL and cause not only physical inconuenience but also emotional and p s g cholo g ical inco nu e nie nce 8' Further, the High court of Bombay in priganko. Rahur Patil u- Ro.hul Rq.uindra pati9 followed the principle laid down in JV.c.v.Aishwarya'scase (2nd cited supra) and. Devika Dhiraj Pqtil Nee Deuika Jagprakash Buttepatt!,s case (3.0 cited supra), and held as follows:_ "TLLe underlying principle gouerning the proceedings under Section of the CpC, is that conuenience of the uift is to be preferred ouer conuenience of the husband.." 9- Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon,bre 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 courts must prefer the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. I i I I I I 3 IZOZZ SCC Online Bom 1982) ,/,t/ I J II 5 LNA, J Tr.CMP.No.l78 of 2025

10. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner is resident of Karimrlagar and v,,hereas F.C.O.P filed by the respondent is pending before the Judge, Family Court, Hanakamonda. Further, petitioner is; entirely dependeant on her parents and brother since there is no source of income to her and in view of the distance between Karimnagar where petitioner is residing to Hanamakonda where F.C.O.P is pending, it is difficult for her to travel on 3very date of hearing. 1 1 . It is; also relevant to note that the cases uiz., MC and DVC between the parties are pending before the Courts at Karimnagar, whereas FCOP filed by the respondent-husband is pending trefore the Court at Hanamakonda and the respondent has'to apltear before the cases pending before Karimnagar. L2. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner- wife seeking transfer of the case.

13. Acc,trdingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allowed and F.C.O.P.No.96 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judge, Family court, Hanamakonda, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of , 6 Tr.CMP.No. I 18 of 202 5 LNA, J n- the Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar accordance with law. for disposal 14' The learned Judge, Family court, Hanamakonda, shall transmit the entire original record in F.c.o.p.No.96 of 202sdury indexed, to the Judge, Family court, Karimnagar preferabry within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 15'. Pending miscelraneou.s applications, if any, shalr stand closed. There shail be no order as to costs. ASSISTA,iH;3i8YRXA 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The Judoe, jamjly Court at Hanamakonda 2. rhe Judie ITt ",il, ill,rnrnr,. i,.fff 33 3d#l'G;#:x,o",t" roPucl Kam/PSL 4L HIGH COURT DATED:1 8/06/2425 ? d ORDER TRCMP.ltlo.178 of 2025 iL ST4;. t ,.-N- ,a.- .l ( 2 3 JAll 2[2[ J( PAT * ALLOWING THE TRCMP b \ pt