INA,J upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gcrrgi Koncr v. Jagleet Singfti. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saraao,na Karthik Shc

Kanjsrla Srikqnth, Sio. Sridhar, Age: 33years, Occ: Business, H.No.3-61/80 Rl/o.Viliage Tailapur, mandal lndalwai, District Nizamabad. ...Respondent Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders to transfer H M.O.P.No 41 ot 2024 on the file of Prl Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad frled by the respondent herein to the file of Judge, Family Court, Adilabad or any other court at Adilabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in H.M.O.P,No.41 of 2O24 on the file of Prl Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad pending disposal of the above transfer C.M.P. in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Aakula Manik Prabhu (Not present) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NAR'.YANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.4O3 of 2024 ORDER: transfer of H.M.O.p.No.41 of 2024 frorn the hle of the Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad to the, Judge, Famity Corrrt at Adilabad.

2. Heard, Siri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Aakula Manik prabhu, entered appeirrance for respondent but there is no representation on beherlf of the respondent.

3. Petitioner herein is wife and respondent hercin is husband. 4. Brief fact.s ,tf the case in nutsh'cll are that marriage of the petitioner-wife and the respondent_husband was sotemniz.ed on 21.O5.2O23 at Venkateshwara Swamy Temple of r./illage Mallapur, Indalwai Mandal as per caste cusLoms ancl petrLioner joined matrimonial house after marriage_ Flou.ever, aftt.r [eu, months she was subjected to physical and mental harasr;mcnt for demand of additional dowry. On lO.Og.2O23 she was .brced to come back to their parents house at Adilabad in vi:vv of continued harassment. petitioner lodged complaint \\,iLr-i the police and despite counseling she was not allowed to rcsidtr u,ith the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner fited crime No.7o of 2o24 under Section 49g-A of IpC ancl Sections 3 ancl 4 of I) p.Act 2 LNA, J TrCMP.No.4B of 2024 \, \ before Women P.S., Adilabad. Petitioner has also frled D.V.C.No.8 of 2024 on the lile of Special JFCM Mobile (PCR) Court at Adilabad and the same are pending. It is further contended that in the meanwhile respondent frled O.P for dissolution of marriage vide H.M.O.P.No.41 of 2O24 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

5. It is mntended that petitioner is Frnancially dependent on her parents and that respondent earlier threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and she is apprehending life threat if she goes to Nizamabad to attend proceedings in H.M.O.P. It is further averred that being a single lady it is diflicult for tle pelitioner to travel distance of 145 kilometers from Adilabad to Nizamabad to attend proceedings in H.M.O.P on every date of hearing and thus requested to transfer H.M.O.P from Nizamabad to Adilabad.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the transfer proceedings of matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife has to be conside red vis-d.-vis the convenience of the husband, and therefore, the request of the petitioner-wife needs to be considered. In support of the said contentions, the learned counscl for the petitioner has relied ./ J TrClt{P \o 403 o1 ..021 INA,J upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gcrrgi Koncr v. Jagleet Singfti. Aishwarya Vs A.S.Saraao,na Karthik Shc2 held as follows: *9. The cctrdtnal pinciple for exercise of pouer under Se'ction 24 of the C:ode of Ciuil Procedure is tlnt tlLe ends of ntstice should demand the tran-sfer of the suit, appeal or other proceediryT. ln matrimonial matters, uth.ereuer Courts are cqlled upon to a>nsider the plea of transfer, the C-ourts haue to take into con sideration the earamic soundness of both the paiies, the social strata of ttLe spouses and their behaviouraL pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subset.tuent thereto and l-he circumstances of both the porties in eklnq out their Liuelittood arLd un-der ulnse protectiue umbret.la the\ are seeking tltei. sustenance to life. Giuen the preuoiling ::ocio- economic paradigm in the Indian societg, generallg, it i.:; the uik's conuenience which must be looked at uhile considenngl transkr."

8. The prinr:iple of law laid down by the Hon'ble Susrreme Court in N.C,V.Aishutaryd's cose (srd cited supra), has been reiterated by tlrr: High Court of Bombay in Deuika Dhiraj Pa.til Nee Devikq Jagprakash Buttepatil u. Dhiraj Sunil Pati9, and observed as trnder:- '(2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 447 'z 2022 See Online sc 1199 r 12023 sccunLine Bom 1926) 4 TrCi4P.No.103 of2024 LNA, J "In a auntry like India, important decisrons such a.s marriage, diuorce are stiu tqken uith tlLe gaidance and blessings of elders in th.e familg. For a ladg to trauel alone for the proceed.ings to a Court uhere the fate of lter marriage is gotng to be decid"ed witlaut ang familg member uould definitelg be a matter of concern and ccLuse not onlg phgsia.l inconuenientp but also emotional and psgchological inconuenience,'.

9. Further, the High Court of Bombay in priganka Rahut Patil v. Rahul Rantindrq. patiF followed the principle laid down in JY.C. V.Aish waryals case (3rd cited supra) and_ Deuika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deuilea Jagprakash Buttepatil's case (4rh cited supra), and held as follows:- "The underlging principle goueming the proceediags under Section of the CpC, k lhat conuenience of the utife is to be prefened ouer the conuenience of th.e htsband."

10. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court and other High Courts Lo the effect that in matrirnonial matters/dispu tcs, r.t,h ilr: considering the apptication for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court, the Courts rqust prefer the convenience of the wife over the \n convenience of the hustrand. o (2023 ScC Online Aom 1982) 5 LNA. J TrCMP.No.lA3 et2024 1 1. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner is rosident *-**'***"--*-6f*AAiTiibed-ei{d'*'1rhEi€eS-tr.}I'UP*mftf5y*.flt-e-'iE5dd?idefr't-Ge!44F--.."'e.-.-**' pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad and Ln view of the long distance between Adilabad where petitirrner is residing to Ni:zarnabad where H.M.O.P is pending, it is difficult for her to trav,el {one on every date of hearing. It is also case of the petitioner that she was threatened by the respondent and also has lear,:l threat if she attends proceedings at Niza mabad in connection u'ith H.M.O.P frled by the respondent

12. It is als,: relevant to note that DVC frled by the per-itioner is pending befbre the Court at Adilabad, whereas HMOP liled by the responde n t-husband is pending before the Court at Nizamabad ancl the respondent has to appear before ttre DVC case pending br:lbre Adilabad. I 3. Thereforc, in the facts and circumstances of the c ase, in the light of ttre principle laid down in the aforesaid de r:isions, this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petrtioner- wife seeking transfer of the case.

14. Accorclingly, this Transfer C.M.P. is allorve,i and H.M.O.P-No.zl I of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civi[ Judge at Nizamabad, is withdrawn and transferred to the [ile of 6 TrCMI'.tio 103 of2O24 LNA, J t the Judge, Family Court at Adilabad, for disposal in accordance with law. 15. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.p.No.4 I of 2024 duly indexed, to the Judge, Family Court at Adilabad, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt o[ a copy of this order. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad 2 The Judge, Family Court, Adilabad 3. One CC io Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Aakula Manik Prabhu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Lrrrn/psl w HIGH COURT DATED:27102t2025 I I ORDER TRCMP.No.403 of 2024 ,a1 /i.. I ,-r ' l:. +' ii \Pfi zffi t A * ALLOWING THI: TRANSFER C.M.P. + *e &- ;(a.5