Courts vs Codc oJ Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice sliou,td demand the

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 in F.C.O.P.No. 53112023 pending before the Court of the Honourable Vl Addl. District and Sessions Judge Cum Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, including the appearance of the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. BANDARU HIMA VARSHINI Counsel forthe Respondents: none The Court made the following: ORDER ;d-+-'s IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.27l of 2024 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is file,l seeking to transfer FCOP.No.531 of 2023 pending on the hle of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Ranga Re<ld1 District, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool.

2. Heard Sri G.Naresh, learned counsel represenr-ing Ms.B.Hima Varshini, learned counsel on record fbr the petitioner. Notice sent to the respondent to the address mentioned in the FCOP, was retumed as 'door locked'. Notice sent to the counsel appearing for the respondent was served. Hou'ever. there is no representation on behalf o1' the respondent. Therefore, the matter is being disposed off basing on the rraterial on record.

3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessay 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 ,13.10.2016 at Arya Samaj, Secunderabad, as per Hindu rites and custorrs; that both lived together at MIG Serlingampally and they were blessed 'vith a girl child on

23.10.2021; that thereafter, the respondent started harassing the petitioner 2 LNA, J T.CMP.No.27l oI2021 for dowry and ultimately the respondent necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial house. At the intervention of elders they lived together for sometime at petitioner's parents' house; however, the respondent later started harassing the petitioner. The respondent and his parents did not turn back to take the petitioner and her daughter to their house. The respondent filed FCOP.No.53 1 of 2023 before the VI Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, seeking dissolution of marriage against the petitioner; and that the petitioner filed maintenance case vide MC.No.7 of 2024 before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkumool. It is averred that the petitioner is dependent on her parents who are financially very weak and further the petitioner cannot travel from Nagarkurnool to Kukatpally, a distance of approximately 100 Kms., on each date of hearing along with her minor chitd and hence, prayed to allow the Tr.CMP.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit submitted that respondent is appearing in the aforesaid MC pending before the II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkumool and therefore, no inconvenience or prejudice would be caused to the respondent if FCOP.No.53l of 2023 is transferred as sought for and in fact, it would be convenient to both the parties if the relief sought ,Wr.E ....i-/ 3 LA'A. J TrCMP.No.27I of2024 for in this case is granted and accordingly, prayed this Court to allow this TT.CMP

5. It is relevant to refer to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking hansfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by tle Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena ofjudgments and the same was follou,ed by various High Courts

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV .Aisltv:arya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik Shatheld as follows: " The cardinal principle /br exercise of potver under Se,.:tion 24 o/'the Codc oJ Civil Procedure is that the ends ofjustice sliou,td demand the transJi'r qf the suit, appeal or other orc,ceeding. In matrintonial ntatters, wherever Courts are called upon t,.t consitler the plea ol transJbr, the Courts have to take into c.tns.ideration the economic sotmtlness oJ both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standnrrl c,f life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circutstances of both the parties i.n eking out their livelihood and under t'hose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to li;fi:. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian socittty, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at v hile considering transfer. " 1 2022 SCC Ontine SC 1199 4 LNA, J T.CMP.No.27l oJ2024

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 Sunil Patil2, and observed as under:- "In a country tike India. imporlant decisions such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alonefor the proceedings to a Court where the fate oJ her marriage is going to be decided witlbut any .family member would definitely be a matter of concern and couse not only physical inconveniettce but also emotional and ps ycho lo g ical inco nve n ie nce. "

8. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil3 foltowed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3'd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (4'r'cited supra), and hetd as follows:- "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that convenience oJ the wife is to be prefeted over the convenience of the husband. "

9. 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 2 IZOZ: SCC OnLine Bom 1926) 3 lzoz: scc onLine Bom 1982) 5 LNA, J 'IrcnlP.No-27I of 2024 proceedings fi'om one Court to another Court, thr' Oourts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband.

10. A perusal of record would disclose that the Ti.CMl' is filed on the ground that the petitioner is residing with her parent:i a'. Nagarkurnool and she is dependent on her parents who are linan,:ia[y very weak. Further, she has to take care of her minor girl child agcd four years and the distance betu,een Nagarkumool to Kukatpally is l0,J kms.; and that it rvould be quiet dilficult for her to travel all the way lron Nagarkurnool to Kukatpally, to attend the Court proceedings on each dar.e of hearing in FCOP.No.53 I of 2023. Further, it is also not in dispute that the respondent is appearing belore the Court at Nagarkurnoo i in connection \ with the aforesaid MC. \ I l. For the foregoing reasons and further, in vier, r,f tl.re underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'bte Supreme Court ancL various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience ,rf rhe wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the husband, this Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking tlansfer ofthe FCOP are justifiable and therefore, this TT.CMP deserves to be allowed. 6 LNA, J T.CMP.N0.I7l of 2024

12. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and FCOp.No.53l of 2023, pending on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum_ Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District is transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, for disposal in accordance with law.

13. The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, shall transmit the entire original record in FCOP.No.53I of 2023, duly indexed, to the Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt ofa copy ofthis order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR I SEC N OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally' 2. fh;znd Senlor Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool' 5. on" CC to SRl. BANDARU HIMA VARSHINI Advocate [oPUC] 4. Ase.Se$qsFtt Atluooete taNC] { Two CD CoPies TL/kam Yl- --;';.:' .-. " *-- .z';'-y,r '.'. l,i-.:,r(: .,, -,1 0 3 si:p 2oz5 '../, HIGH COURT DATED:1 0/07 12025 ORDER TRCMP.No.271 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE TRANSFER C.M.P. G*6d H. 6ile