The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishtoarya v. A. S. Saraaano. Karthik Shar held as follows

PetitionUnderSection24ofthec.P.c.Prayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be pleased toto kansfer in": n vr o. p No. 116 0f 2024 pending on the file of senior civil Judge, iangareOOy district to the court of Honbie Senior Civil - Judge, Mancherial district. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtostay ,iifrrtn", proceedings pending in H. M O. P No 116 of 2024 pending on the.file oi s"niol civit Juige, Sangareddy district in the interest of justice, pending disposal of this transfer petition. IA NO: 2 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 tn" interim ordei dt. 03-10-2024 passed in lA No. ',l of 2024 ia Tr CMP No. "rt"no 413 of 2024 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl VEMPARALA V SIVA RAMA KRISHNA ADITYA Counsel for the Respondent: N KUMARA SWAMY The Court made the following: ORDER .r ,le- 4+-=- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY TRANSFER CIVILMISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.413 of 2o.24 ORDEII.. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is fiied seeking transfer of HMOP.No. 1 16 of 2024 pendtog on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy Dislrict, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

2. Heard Sr: V.Sivarama Krishna Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Kumara Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case, shorn_off unneccssary details, required for adjudication of this Tr.c.M.p., are that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was performe d on 24.O5.2O2O, at Bugga Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, near Devapur Village, Mancherial District as per Hindu Rites and Customs; that soon after marriage, the petitioner joined the matrimonial company of the respondent; that. out of their wedlock they were blessed with a male child on 24.12.2021; that thereafter, the petitioner .was subjected to harassment and the respondent failed to take proper care of petitioner as well as minor- child; that ultimately the petitioner was necked out from the matrimonial house and she is staying with her parents at Mancherial; that the respondent filed HMop No. 116 ol 2024 on the frle of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy District, seeking dissolution of marrrage; that the petitioner lodged a complaint before WpS, 2 Ramagundam under Sections 85, 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide Crime No- 14 of 2025 and in the said crime' Police hled charge sheet and the same was numbered as CC'No'225 of 2025and'pendingbeforellAdditionalJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass, Mancherial for adjudication. It is averred that though the petitioner was workinginGEPSolutionsPrivateLimitedwhichissituatedat Hyderabad, she is working from home by taking permission from the company. In proof of the same, petitioner has filed copy of approvals given by her employer. It is further averred that she has minor child and she has to take care of her minor child, therefore, it is difficult for her to travel from Mancherial to Sangareddy along with the minor chiid' a distance of 27o Kms., to attend the Court proceedings in HMOP.No. 1 16 of 2024 on every date of hearing' Hence' present Tr'CMP is frled Learned Counsel for the respondent entered appearance and filed

4. counter denying the allegations made in the Tr'CMP' Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that criminal cases were filed by the petitioner subsequent to filing of OP by the respondent which clearly shows the conduct of petitioner in harassing the respondent He further submits that the respondent has threat to his life in the hands of petitioner's family members and in fact he was attacked when he visited Mancherial, therefore, prays to dismiss the Tr'CMP- 3

5. It is reler.ant to refer to the underlying principle governing the proceedings under section 24 of tine cpc seeking transfer of the case, appeal or otht-.r proceedings, which is enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and the same was followed by various High Cc,urts

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishtoarya Vs. A. S. Saraaano. Karthik Shar held as follows: " Tlte carclinat pincipte for exercise of pouer un.d.er Section 24 of the Code of Ciuil proced.ure is that the end s of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceed.ing. In matnmonial matters, tahereuer Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the courts haue to toke into considerotton the economic soundness of both tlrc parties, tte social strato of the spouses and. their behauioural pattern, their standard of life pior to tLLe marriage and. subsequent thereto and the clrcl)mstances of both tl.te parties in eking out their liuelihood and under uthose protectiue umbrella theg are seeking their sustenance to life. Giuen the preuailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian societg, geruerallg, it is the toife's cttnt'enience which must be looked. at uthiLe consid_eing transfer." 7 . The principle of law laid down by the Hon,.ble Supreme Court in N.C,V.Aishwarya.,s case (Atd cited. supra), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Dedka Dhtraj patil Nee Devika I 2022 scc Online SC 1199 4 n Jagprakash Buttepdtil u. Dhiral Sunit PatlP ' under:- ald observed as "In a country like India, important decisions such os manriage, d-iuorce are still taken uith the guidance and blessings of elders in the familg' For a lady to trauel alone for the proceedings to a Court uLhere the fate of her manriage is going to be decided u-tithout ang family member utould definitelg be a matter of concPrrL and cause not onlg phgsical inconuenience but also emotional and psychologicol inconuentence.

8. v. Further, the High Court of Bombay in Priganka Rahul Patil Rahul Ravindra Pati9 followed the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishu.ta4ya's case (3rd cited supra) and Devika Dhirqi Patil Nee Deuikd Jagprakash Buttepatil's case (4h cited supra)' and held as follows:- "The underlging pinciple gouerning tlrc proceedings under Section 24 of tle CPC, i"s that conuenience of the wife is to be preferred ouer the conuenience of *Le husband." Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble g . Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court to another Court' the 2 (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926) ' izozg scc onune Bom 1982) 5 Courts must give preference to the convenience of the wife over the convenlence of the husband

10. A perusal of record would disclose that the petitioner filed TT.CMP on the ground that the she is staying with her parents at Mancherial and working from home; that she has to take care of her minor child; that the distance between Mancherial and Salgareddy is 270 krrLs', thererore it is difficult for her to travel such a rong distance along with m;nor child to attend the court proceedings in HMOP.No.1 16 oi 2024 and she is also apprehending threat to her life. Further, it is zLlso undisputed that both the cases filed by the petitioner against the respondent i.e., CC.No.225 of 2O2S as well as DVC.No.16 of 2o2s are pending before the II Additionar Junior civil Judge, Mancherial. I 1 1. In the facts and circumslances of the case and further, in view of the underlying principie enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme court and various other High Courts in the aforesaid Judgments that the convenience of the wife has to be given priority/preference over the convenience of the husband, this Court hnds that the grounds urged by the petitioner. seeking transfer of the Op are justihable and therefore, this Tr.CMp deserves to be allowed.

12. Accordingly. Tr.C.M.p. is allowed and HMOp.No.176 of 2024, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Salgareddy District, is 6 r1 transferred. to the court of Senior civil Judge, Mancherial District, for disposal in accordance with law.

13. The Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy District, shall transmit the entire original record in HMOP'No.1I6 of 2024, duly indexed, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscelianeous applications, if any, sha1l stand closed There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- L LAKSHMI BABU D PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ s CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy District' 2. One CC to Sri VempararuV B*' nj'" Krishna Aditya Advocate [OPUC] S. One CC to Sri N. Kumara Swamy, Advocate 4. Two CD CoPies SR/GR HIGH COURT DATED:05/OBt2O2S I ,A c" ( P , r.) //< , 2258Pffi It6 . .-,\\) Z' ORDER TRCMP.No.413 of 2024 DISMISSING THE TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION I b a'