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

Order

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to transfer H.M.O'P'No'6 7 of 2024 on the file of the leamed Senior Civil Judge, at Kodad' Suryapet District to the Court of learned SeniorCivilJudge,Miryalaguda'NalgondaDistrict' 2

Heard Sri M.V'Hanumantha Rao' leamed counsel for the petlttoner No rePresentatlon on behatf of the resPondent' desPite seruice of Notice' -l'he Brief facts leading to fitling of the present Tr'C'M'P 3. are that the r-narriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized with the respondent-husband on 26'02'2020 at Bethavolu viltage' Chilkur Mandal, Suryapet District, as per the prevailing cusloms in their comrnunity' It is stated that out of their wedlock' they rver.e bressed with a baby boy. However, she was ir-treated and runable to bear the physical harassment and abuse by respondent' and his tamily members' for want of additional dowry' On 29.08.2022, the respondent and his family members necked her 2 LNA' J T.CMP.No.25l of2021 out of the house. Thereafter, the petitioner todged a complaint in Crime No.102 of 2022 on 06.09.2022 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 324 arld 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 before Chilkur Police Station and the same is pending. She also frled M.C.No.3l of 2022 and DVC before the leamed Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and the same are pending

3.1. It is further averred that at present, she is taking shelter in her parent's house in Miryalaguda and IS financially dependent on her parents. The respondent only to harass the petitioner has filed the HMOP at Kodad. As there is threat in the hands of respondent, she cannot travel alone flrom Miryalaguda to Kodad to attend the Court proceedings at Kodad, rvhich is burdensome on her parents. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner filed the present Tr.C.M.P.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner apart from the averments made in the affidavit had contended that though the respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2024 before the leamed . _S11ior Civil Judge, at Huzurnagar seeking for dissolution ol LNA, J T|CMP.No.25l of2024 3 marriage, however in view of establishment of new Courts, the said case was transferred to the CourJ at Kodad i'e', leamed Senior Civil Judge, Kodad and renumbered as H.M'O'P'No'67 of 2024

4.1. Leamed counsel for the, petitioner further submitted that presently, the petitioner is residing with her parents at Miryataguda and is financially dependent on her parents and she has to take care of small child, therefore, it is difficult for the petitioner to travel from Miryalaguda to Kodad to attend the pending case. [t is further contended that the respondent is attending both the matters i.e., M.C and D.V.C which are pending betbre the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Miryataguda, Natgonda District. Therefore, no inconvenience will be caused to the respondent and hence, he prayed to allow the present I'r.CMP.

5. 't'his Clourt considered the submissions made by leamed counsel fbr the petitioner and pemsed the material available on record 4 LNA. J T.CMP.No.2s t ot2024 6 The underlying principle goveming the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer pf the case, appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena ol judgments 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 ofpov,er under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is thot the ends ofjustice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. 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 behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both lhe parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at wltile considering transfer. "

8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3'd citetl supra), has been ' 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 5 LNA, J TtMP.No.25l of 2024 reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dbirai Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Burtepatil v. Dhirai Sunil PatiP, and observed as under:- "In a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone Jbr the proceedings to a Court where the fate of her marriage is going to be decided without any famtly member would deJinitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical incont,enience but also emotional and psyc ho logica I inco nve nience. "

9. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priyanka Rahul Patit v. Rahul Rtvintlra Patill tbltowed the principle laid down in N.C. V.Aishwarys'5 case (3'd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil's case (4th cited supra), and held as lo[[ows:- "The wtderlying principLe governing the proceedings unrler Section 21 ol'the CPC, is that convenience of the n'ifb i.v b be pre./brred over the convenience of the husbontl.' 2 IZOZ3 SCC Online Bom 1926) 3 (205 SCC Onlrne Bom 1982) 6 LNA, J T.CMP.No.25l of 2021

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the.Hon,ble Supreme Court and other High Couds 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 give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. 1 l. In the present case, a perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is seeking transfer of the H.M.O.p. f,rled by the respondent lrom the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Kodad, to the Court o[ learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, on the ground that the she is dependent upon her parents and has to look after the welfarc of her child aged three and halfyears and therefore, it is difficult for her to travel from Miryalguda to Kodad on every date of adjournment. Further, for every hearing, she has to take assistance from her familv members.

12. Also, it is relevant to note that the cases uL., MC and DVC betw,een the parlies are pending before the Courts at Miryatg[d., r.r,hereas HMOP filed by the respondent-husband is pending befbre the Court at Kodad. 7 LNA, J T.CMP.No.2SI of2021

13. 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.

14. Therefore, in view of the underlying principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid judgments that the convenience of the petitioner/wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the respondent/husband, this TT.CMP deserves to be allowed.

15. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.P. is allorved and HMOP.No.67 of 2024 on the file of the leamed Senior Civil Judge, at Kodad, Suryapet District is translerred to the Court of leamed Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, for disposal in accordance with law.

16. The leamed Senior Civil Judge, at Kodad, shall transmit the entire or:iginal record in HMOP No.67 o12024, duly indexed, to the Courl ol learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, 8 LNA, J TrCMP-No.25I of2021 Nalgonda District, preferably within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis orden.

17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR U SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Kodad, Suryapet District 2. The Senior Civil Judge, tvliryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

3. One CC to SRI M. V HANUMANTHA RAO, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies Pcsd/gh Vr- \ I S l^t 6 ,tt (: 25 AUE zffi - , 'i.a,,. .,-. t;\'\ \\-_-,-:--7 --t./ i ,, { ,,/ ,a/ HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 a- :') :) ) ORDER TRCMP.No.251 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ^t b,t{to P*