Further, the High Court of Bombav it Priganka Rahul Patit v. Rahul Rauindra PatiP follo'r'ed the principle laid down in N.C.V. Aishutarya's ca

: Sri Mohd Ashraf Ali Counsel for the ResPondents : None Appeared The Court made the following : ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.2l5 of 2O25 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transler O.S.No.3 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Yellarcddr,, Kamareddy District, to the learned I-Additional Judge, Iramily Court, Hyderabacl.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Ashraf Ali, learned counsel for petitioner and there is no representation on beh.rlf of th,: respondent, despite service of noticc. .3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnec(issary details, required for adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., as averred in the affidavit hlcd in support of rhe Tr.C.M.P., zrre that pcritioner and respondent are lvife and husband arnd thcir rnarriage was performed on 73.07.2023, at 'lolr,lichowki, Hydclabad, as per Muslim rites and cusloms prevaler)t in their conrmunity; that after marriage, she joined matrimonial housc of respondent, that out of the wedlock, they wcre blessed u,ith a male child, u,ho is now aged about 9 months, horvever, fcr.v rlavs after the marriage, respondenl started harassing the petitioner physically, mentally and sexually ancl also totally neglected her instead of providing basic amenitics, and in view of the harassment, petitioner lodgcd a complaiDt against the ( L 2 respondent, before Lhe S.I{.O, Women P.S.South Wcst Zone, Hyderabad, and on that FIR.No.58 of 2O25 was registered under Section 351(2) BNS and SecLions 3 and 4 of D.P.Acr. Subsequently, Lhe respondent has {rled a suiL uide O.S.No.O3 of 2025, for restitution of conjugal rights, before the Court of Junior Civil Judge , Ycllareddy.

4. It is furthcr avcrrcd that peLitioner has also filed M.C.No.123 of 2025 agalnst the respondent before the I-Additional Family Court, integrated F amily CourL, at Hyderabad. The respondent has also filed G.W.O.P.No.61 of 2027, before the I Additional Jr-tdge, Family Court, Hyderabad and the said cases are pending adjudication. It is averred [haL petitioner was resid ing r'vith her parents at Hyderabad and has to take care of the minor child; and therefore, it is not possible for her to travel frorn Hyderabad to Yellareddy, Kamareddy District, to attend the Court proceedings in O.S.No.O3 of 2025, on each date of hearing of thc said case and hence, she prayed to al1ow this Tr.CMP.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in thc afhdavit, submitted that respondent is appearing in the aforesaid MC and G.W.O.P pending in the I-Additional Family Court, Hvderabad and therefore, no inconveniencc or prejudice q,ould be caused to respondent if t J O.S.No.O3 of 2025 is transferred as sought for and in fact, it would be convenient to both the parties if the reliel'sought for in this case is granted and accordingly, prayed this (lourt to allow this Tr.CMP.

6. It is reievant to refer to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of Lhe CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Courts.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya VS.A.S. Saraaa.nq. Karthik Sharheld as follows: "The cardinal pinciple for exercise of pot,rcr under Section 24 of tlrc Code of Ciuil Procedure i:; that the ends of justice should demand the transfer cf the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matimoni(tl matters, uhereuer Courts are colled upon to. consider the plea of transfer, the Courts haue to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, :he social strato of tl.rc spouses and their behauioral pattern, t.heir standard of life pior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and- the circamstances of both the parties in eking out their liuelihood and under u.those protectiue umbrella theg are seeking their sustenance to life. Giuen the preuailing socio- economic prtradiqm in the 1f ?022 SCC Online SC 1199 4 Indian societg, generally, it is the uife's conuentence tuhich must be looked at uhile consideing transfer'"

8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishruarya's case (3'd cited. s-upra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devikq Dhirai Patil Nee Deuika Jagprakash Buttepatit a. Dhirai Sunil PatiP ' and observed as under: - "In a country like India, important decisions such as manriage, diuorce are still taken tttith the guidance and blessings of elders in the familg. For a lady to trauel alone for the proceed.ings to a Couri where the fate of her marriage is going to be decided u'tithout ang family member u-tould definitely be a matter of concent and couse not onlA phgsical inconuenience but also emotional and p sy cholog ical inco nu e nie nce' "

9. Further, the High Court of Bombav it Priganka Rahul Patit v. Rahul Rauindra PatiP follo'r'ed the principle laid down in N.C.V. Aishutarya's case (3'd cited supra) and Detika Dhirorl Patll Nee Deuika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (4n cited supra), and heid as follows: - "The underlging pinciple gouenting the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that '?(2023 scc onLine Bom 1926) 3(2023 scc oyBon re82) I 5 conuenience of the tuife is to be preferre,l <tuer the conuenience of the husband."

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions ot the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to the eliect that in matrimonial matters/disputes, while con;idering the application lor transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of th,: h usband. I 1 . I t is apt to note that admittedly, the petitio ne r is residing with her parents at Hyderabad and she has to take care of her minor child aged about 9 months, and as such, it would be quiet diffircult for her to travel all the way from Hvdcrabad to Yellareddy, Kamareddy, to attend the Court p roceedings in O.S.No.O3 of 2025. Further, it is also not in dis;ptrte that the respondcnt is appearing before the I-Additional Fa mily Court, at Hyderabad in connection with the aforesaid M.C ar-rcl G.W.O.p.

12. For the foregoing reasons and further, irL vieu, of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble S:preme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenie nce of the wife has to be given prior ty / preference over the convenience of the husband, this Court t-rnds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of rhe O.S are justifiable and therefore, this TT.CMP deserves to bc zrllowecl. \ t I \ 6

13. Accordingly, this Tr'C M P' is allowed and O'S'No'O3 of 2O25, pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge' at Yellareddy' is transferred to the I-Additional Judgc, Family Court' at Hyderabad, for disposal in accordance rl'ith law'

14. The learned Junior Civil Judge, zrt Yellareddy' sha1l transmittheentireoriginalrecordinO'SNo'O3of2025'du1y indexed, to the file of the learned I-Additional Judge' Family Court, at Hyderabad, preferably lr'ithin a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'

15. Pending misceilaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed. There shail be no order as to costs' //TRUE COPY// SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR .r"r,ffirr,"=* I To, I

1. The Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy, Kamareddy District i. fn" r AJaltional Jud-ge Family Court at Hyderabad a. o"; ic to sri Mohd Ashraf Ali, Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies vs/S " Jiy- HIGH COURT DATED:1 510712025 ORDER TRCMP.N o.215 ot 2025 .), 10 SEP z[fr -ril ln11gH€ o ALLOWING THE TRCMP b0 sbr