The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Shat held as follows

H#,s,"rni[{ft"ffii,i[B[iJf,=fli8::,:'sri:,,i,x:ffi b3.::,f 3r: AND HIl1.,i,3sgJ# j:Jk",_ifigl?xs'sf"?tx$43::,fi :?tr}"l?#fi ...Petitioner ,:,occpv, Petition Under Secti,on 24.?,f the C.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired thsrew;1ir, ii," riighi"'r';L"y o" preased to transfer the G W o p No 25t2024 0n the fire of H"r;ol""iriirv'bourt cum rV Additionar Diskict and Sessions Judge, SangaooOy to io":Or" irrir"Yi pal Family court (lntegrated), Hyderabad in tn"lit-ur"-J. of justice. IA NOilOF 2025 ...Respondent Petition under section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in srroport of tfre petifioif iir,".,H,gn Court may be pleased to ;:!1]!1,:i:,",,%::",-"#:?;i[":,y"",f H".,.,,*lon*reri,eoiHo;,;i;]rmiry disposal ottneauove'iraisferCMp Judge, Sangareddy, pending IANO:2OF 2025 Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in suoport or ir," pJtii.il'tiru,,Higt, Court may be pteased to dismiss the l.A. 1 of 202s in Tr.cMF.N;;;;';i;oZ; and vacate the stay. I This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of sri J srinivas, Advocate for the Petitioner and of smt. Radhika palla, Advocate for the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER r HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.237 of 2025 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, Sangareddy to the Principal Family Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri J.Srinivas, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palla Radhika Sharma, leamed counsel for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details, required lor adjudication of this Tr.C.M.P., as averred in the affidavit filed in suppoft of the TTCMP, are that petitioner and respondent are wife and husband; that their marriage was solemnized on 26.10.2016 at Hyderabad; that out of wedlock, they are blessed with one boy, who is now aged about five years; however, the respondent began harassing the petitioner both physically and mentally over petty issues. It is averred that Respondent filed FCOP.No.\467 of 2024 on the fite of Principal Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking divorce and has also hled G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2024 on the file of Family Court, Sangareddy, seeking custody of their son. Thereafter, the respondent filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus vide Writ No.25976 of 2024, seeking production of the chitd and this Court 2 TLCMP No )37 af 2D5 L)\iA J dismissed the said writ Petition, with an obsen ation that the child is in the custody of biological mother and respondent has a rcrnedy to get the visitation rights fronr the Family Court.

3.1. It is further averred that petitioner is residing in Hyderabad and as such, it is difficult lor her to travel along vuith the minor child from Hyderabad to Sangareddy on each and every date of hearing of GWOp, therefore, she prayed to translcr GWOP to the principal Family Court Hyderabad, in which Court the aforesaid FCOp is also pending for adjudication.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, apart from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit, further submitted that the respondent is appearing before Principal Family Court at Hyderabad in FCOp.No.l467 of 2024 therefore, no inconvenience or prejudice would be caused to respondent if GWOP.No.25 of 2024 is transferred as sought for and in fact, it would be convenient to both the parties and it would also avoid conflicting decisions, if both the cases are taken up by the same Court and accordingly, prayed this Courl to allow this TrCMp.

5. Leamed counsel for respondent contended that no reasonable or plausible ground is urged by petitioner for transfer of GWOp and hence, this TrCMP is liable to be dismissed. 3 TTCMP No)37 of2025 LNA,J

6. It is relevant to refer to the r.rnderlying principle goveming the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, which is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in a catena ofjudgments and the same was followed by various High Courts.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Shat held as follows: "The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand tlrc transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceecling. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioral pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage ctnd subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelthood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given lhe prevailing socio- economic paradtgm in the Indian society, generallT,, it is the wife's convenience which must be lookd at while co ns ide r i n g t ransfe r. "

8. 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 _ 2ozz scc ontine sc 1199 High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika layprakash Buttcpatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Pafiil, and observed as under: - Tr.CM'No.2l7 of 2025 LNA,J \ "ln o country like India, important decisions ,such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the gtLidance and blessings of elders in the familv. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court where the fate of her matiage is going to be decided without any family memher would definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychologicol inconvenience. "

9. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil3 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwaryu's case (3'd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (4th cited supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred over llrc convenience 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 (zoz: Scc Online Bom 1926) 312023 scc onLine Bom 1982) j TT.CMP No.237 o12025 LN,|'J proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband.

11. It is apt to note that admittedly, the petitioner has to take care of her minor child aged five years and as such, it would be quite difficult for her to travel along with minor child all the way from Hyderabad to Sangareddy to attend the Court proceedings in G.W.O.P No.25 of 2024. Further, it is also not in dispute that the respondent is appearing before the Court at Hyderabad in the aforesaid FCOP.

12. For the foregoing reasons and further, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'bte Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the wife has to be given priorityi preference over the convenience of the husband, this Court finds that the grounds urged by the petitioner seeking transfer of the G.W.O.P are justifiable and therefore, this TrCMP deserves to be allowed.

13. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allowed and G.W.O.P.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, Sangareddy, is transferred to the I I 6 TrCMP No.237 of2025 LIiA,J Principal Family Court, Hyderabad, for disposal in accordance with

14. The Judge, Family Court, Sangareddy, shall transmit the entire original record in G.W.O.p.No.25 of 2024, duly i,dexed. to the principal Family Court, Hyderabad, preferably within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, il any, shalt stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII AS S S D/- B.REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR ,/ ECTION OFFICER To, ] ]!'," Famity Court cum tV Additionat Diskict and Se 2. The Principat ramily Court,Hyderabad. tsstons Judge, sangareddy. ? 9n" CC to Sri J Srinivas, Ravocate [OpUCl 4. One CC to Sri Radhika pafta, nOvoJu iOlUCt 5. Two CD Copiris ABK/PSL f- '\ HIGH COURT DATED: 2910712025 I n ORDER TRCMP.No.237 of 2025 ,/,: .'-) ',r I( .: I I 1 1E AUB 2U5 1i'.l' : PAtct-'i' ALLOWING THE TRCMP, * q \ \