The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwalya v. A.S.Saravana Karlhik Shatheld as follows

HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE LAXMT NARAYANA ALII]HETTY TRANSFER CIV ILMISCELLANEO US PETITIONNo.412 of 2024 ORDER: This Transfer. Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed seeking to transfer FCOP.No.I32 of 2014 on the file of the FamLly Court_ cum-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpzrlly to the Court ofSenior Civil Judge at Bodhan. 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar. Komireddy, leamed counsel representing Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Sri S.prasad Babu, leamed counsel for respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case, shom_off unnecessary details, required for adj,dication of this Tr.c.M.p., are that the peritioner in her affidavit filcd in suppoft ol the TrCMp, averred thar. she and respondent ar.e wife and husband; that their marri rge was sol[mnized on 06.05.2022 at Nirmal as per Hindu l.ites and customs; that after marriage ceremonies, she joi.:red the matrimonial cornpany of respondent at Miyapur, Hyderabad, however, soon thereafter, the respondent and his family rnembers started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally on petty reasons and also threatened her. It is further aver.r.ed that 2 T,NA. J T.CMP.No.! l2 of2021 respondent filed FCOP.No.|3Z of 2024, on created and concocted grounds, for dissolution of marriage before the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally; that the petitioner filed maintenance case in MC.No. 15 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan and also lodged a complaint registered as Crime No.386 of ZOZq before Bodhan Police Station under Sections 498-4 rlw 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the said cases are pending.

4. The petitioner further averred that she is presently residing at Bodhan along with her parents and in order to attend the proceedings of courl at Kukatpally, she has to travel a distance of about 220 kms by inter changing three buses; that there is a threat to her life in the hands of the respondent if she appears betbre the Court at Kukatpally; and that there is no assistance to her to travel t all the way from Bodhan to Kukatpally to appear before the Court as her parents are old aged. In those set of circumstances, the present TT.CMP is frled.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the averments made in the affidavit submitted that respondent is appearing in the MC filed by the petitioner at Bodhan and ,// J LNA, J l'rt:iP-No.412 of2024 therefore no prejudice would be caused to him if FCOI,.No.l32 of 2024 is transferred to the Court at Bodhan. FIe further submitted that a criminal case filed against the respondent is also pending at Bodhan Police Station, therefore it is appropr.iate that the TrCMP is allowed.

6. On the other hand, leamed counsel for respondent submitted that respondent is ready and willing to pay the travel expenses to the petitioner whenever she attends the (lourt at Kukatpally. Leamed counsel further submitted that while adjudicating the Transfer Petitions, the Courl has to see the convenience of both the parties. In support of his submission, he relied upon order dated 25.09.2024 of this C)r>ur1 in TrCMP.No..l35 of 2024, whereunder the presence of the petitioner therein-wife before the trial Court was dispensed with I and she was permitted to file chief affidavit and further. ordered that her cross-examination can be done either througtL Video conferencing or by appointing an Advocate-Commissiont:r at her place ofresidence with the expenses of the respondent.

7. The said TrCMP was filed by the petitioner there,in-wife .seeking to transfer the case from the Court at Godavaril hani to \ \ .Fq '! 4 LNA, J T.CMP.No.4t2 ol2024 .1 I f Nizamabad and it was the case of the respondent therein_ husband that he is working at Chennai and he has direct train .from Chennai to Godavarikhani and .if the said TrCMp is allowed, it will be inconvenient for him to attend the Court at Nizamabad, as there is no direct train from Chennai to "":'""'' "' Nizamabad and in those set of facts, this Court dismissed the TrCMP filed by the peritioner therein-wife

8. The facts o[thq, present case are not similar to that of the case refered and yelied upon by learned counsel for petitioner. 'In the instant case, no inconvenience is said to be caused to respondent if the case is transferred from the Court at Kukatpally to the Court at Bodhan, therefore, the aforesaid judgment of this Court in TrCMP.No.33 5 of 2024 is of no aid to the respondent. 9. This Court considered the submissions made by learned t counsel for both the parties. perused the material available on record.

10. The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case, appeal or other proceedings, is enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a /I i ) LNA. J T.Cltl'.No.4t2 oI2024 catena of judgments and the same was lollowed by valious High Courts. a

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwalya Vs. A.S.Saravana Karlhik Shatheld as follows: " The cardinal principle for exercise ofpower under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is thdl the ends oJ .,iustice should demand the transfer of the suit, oppeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courls are called upon to consider the plea of trurrcfer, the Courl\ have to take into considerotion the economic soundness of t'oth the parties. the sociol strata o/ the spouses and their beharioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marria.qe and subsequen.t thereto and the circumstances of both the lnrties in eking out their livelihood and utder whose . pro,'ective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to Life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradignt in tha Indion ,society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be iooked at while considering transfer. " t

12. The principie of law laid down by the Hon'ble S.rpreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya's case (3't cited supra)., hz,s been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Devika Dhiraj Patil ' ro*-aa on,,n" r* 6 LNA, J T.CMP.No.4l2 of 2024 Nee Deviku Jayprakash Bultepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil paliP, and, observed as under:- "In a countty like India, important decisions such as marriage, diyorce are still taken with the guidance ond blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court where the fofe of her marriage is going to be decided without any fomity member would deJ'initely be a matter of concern and cause not only phys ical inc,onvenience but also emotional and psychological inconvenience. "

13. Further, the High Court of Bombay in priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Paif fotlowed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishh'arya's case (3rd cited supra) and Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil,s case (4th cited supra), and held as lollows:- t "The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 21 of the CPC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred oyer the convenience of the hwband. "

14. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme_purt and other High Courts to the effect that in ' 1Z0z: scc onLine Bom 1926) ' (2023 SCC Online Bom 1982) 7 LNA, J Trt -.lP.No.4t2 of2024 matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to anoth,:r Court, the Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenience of the husband. 15. Perusal of the record discloses that the petil<xrer is seeking transfer of FCOp.No. 1 lZ of ZOZq on the grounris vL., that she is presently residing with her aged parents at tlrdhan; that as she has no asslstance travel all alone fiom Bodhan to Kukatpally, which rs at a distance of ))o kms; that ;he is financially dependent on her parents; and that there is life threat in the hands of the respondent if she attends the cc)uft at "to Kukatpally. t

16. It is also evident from record that the respondent is appearing in the MC fired by petirioner at Bodhan and arso, a criminal case in Crime No.3g6 of 2024of Bodhan police Station is pending and therefore, if this TrCMp is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to respondent and hence, this Court deerrLs it appropriate and iustifiable to accede to the request ol. the petitioner. t I I t 8 LNA, J TTCMP.No-412 ol202a ^l

17. Further, 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 TrCMp deserves to be allowed. 18. Accordingly, this Tr.C.M.p. is allowed and FCOp.No.l32 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court_cum_Additional District Judge, Rangareddy at Kukatpally is transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan for disposal in accordance with law. 19. The Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, , Rangareddy at Kukatpally, shall transmit the entire original record in FCOP.No. I 32 of 2024, duly indexed, ro the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, preferably within a period of one rnonth from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand I closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Familv Court -cum_ Additional District Judge, Rangareddy at Kdkatpally

2. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan. 3. One CC to SRI KTRAN REDDY MALLARAPU, Advocate IOPUCI IL r... -. .- ir.: l-J:,i;l, I

4. One CC to SRI S. PRASAD BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 1<( Pcsd/gh \ t ) "::a:- ti, ls j ( I I C)rJ t o v * 1 1 iUL 2025 1)/ ' )r.1 t-f,]31 .t HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 I I ORDER TRCMP.N0.412 of 2024 t ALLOWING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION EK \o \