The Honble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya v. A.S.Sarauana Karthik Shaz held as follows

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Raj Kumar Rudra The Court made the following: ORDER {' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Tr.C.M.P.No.4L9 of 2o24 ORDER: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is fiIed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2024 from the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Meedak to the Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

2. Heard, Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel for the respondent

3. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that marriage of the petitioner-u'ife was solemnized with the respondent- a husbald on 01.05.2008 at Venkata Sai Garden Function HaIl, Nalgonda Town as per Hindu customs and traditions and out of wedlock, they are blessed with a boy on

74.O2.2012; that differences arose between the petitioner and respondent and the respondent did not take petitioner to U.S.A where he was working and thus petitioner filed complaint before the Nalgonda II Town Police Station vide Crime No.318 of 2Ol4 for the offences under Sections 498- A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the respondent and his family members and after the i I 2 LNA, J TrCMP.No.4l9 o[ 2024 investigation, police filed a charge sheet rride C.C.No.242 1 of 2024 on the frle of the Prohibition & Excise JFCM, Nalgonda, that the petitioner liled D.V.C.No.22 of 2015 on the frle of the Special Mobile JFCM, Nalgonda against the respondent and his family members and also Iiled a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights vide O.P.No.14O of 2Ol7 on the frle of the Family Court, at Nalgonda. 4 It is contended that after filing of the above casqs, respondent had promised with the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- as permanent alimony and out of the said arnount respondent paid an amount of a Rs.27,50,000/- and further agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.27,50,0OO / - at the time of adducing evidence in the mutual divorce petitions as per terms and conditions dated 08.09.2021. It is further contended that both the petitioner and respondent filed mutual divorce petition vide O.P.No.66 of 2O2l on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda, however, the respondent did not pay the total permanent alimony, only paid part payment. It is further contended that some of the above said cases were 3 LNA, J T{MP.No.4l9 of )024 withdrawn and some cases were settled before the Lok Adalat but respondent failed to pay total amount as per terms and conditions dated 08.09.2021 and it is contended that respondent had intentionally cheated without paying the balance out of the agreed amount.

5. It is further contended that in view non-compliance of terms and conditions by the respondent, petitioner again filed M.C.No.8 of 2O2l on the file of the Judge, Famlly Court, at Nalgonda, gave complaint against respondent and his family members vide Crime No.S of 2023 at WPS, Nalgonda for the offences under sections 498-A, 506 of IPC a and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and the police filed a charge sheet vicle C.C.No.33 1 of 2023 on the file of JFCM (Prohibition & Excise offences) at Nalgonda and D.V.C.No.34 of 2023 on the file of Special (Mobile) JFCM, Na,[gonda. 6- It is contended that the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.lO of 2024 for divorce on the hle of Senior Civil Judge at Medak only to harass the petitioner ald it is further contended that petitioner was subjected to 1 I,NA J TrCMP.No.4l9 of 2024 harassment when she appeared before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Medak and also submitted that petitioner has great difficulty to appear before the Court at Medak and also stated that it is difhcult for the petitioner to travel from Nalgonda to Medak as distance between both the places is about 21O kilometers and has to take care of her minor son and thus prayed to transfer H.M.O.P filed by the respondent from Medak to Nalgonda 7 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and further contended a that if all the matters are transferred to any Court at Hyderabad it will be convenient for both the parties to attend the proceedings at common place instead of Nalgonda and Medak

8. A perusal of the record disclose that petitioner is a resident of Nalgonda and she has filed M.C.No.8, of 2021, Crime No.5 of 2023, C.C.No.331 of 2023 and D.V.C.No.34 of 2023 before the Courts at Nalgonda. It is specifically contended on behalf of petitioner that she was subjected to .; l'rCMP.No 4 | 9 of 2024 LA'A, J harassment when she appeared before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Medak. It is further contended that in view of long distance of 27O kilometers between Nalgonda to Medak and also because of her minor child, it is difficult for the petitioner to appear in H.M.O.p before the Family Court, Medak and as respondent is appearing before the Courts at Nalgonda, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if H. M.O.p is transferred from Meclak to .. Nalgonda. 9 . In the transfer proceedings of matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife has to be considered 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 counsel for the petilioner has relied upon tl,re judgrnent of the Honble Supreme Court in Gargi Konar u. Jagjeet Singht. 10. The Honble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya Vs A.S.Sarauana Karthik Shaz held as follows: ' (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 442 ' 2022 SCC Ontrne SC I 199 6 TrCMP No 419 oJ 2D4 LNA, J "9. The cardinal pinciple for exercise of pouer und_er Section 24 oJ the Code of Ciuil procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transkr of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matimonial mo,tters, tDhereuer Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transkr, the Courts haue to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behauioural pattern, their standard. of life pior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circu.mstances of both the parties in eking out their Iiuelihood and. und.er u-those protectiue umbrella the! are seeking their sustenance to tife. Giuen the preuailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generallg, it is the utife's conuenience uthich must be lool&d at tuhile cons ide ring t ran sfe r. " I 1. The principle of iaw laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya,s case (Sra cited supror), has been reiterated by the High Court of Bombay in Deuika Dhiraj Patil Nee Deuika Jagprakash Buttepatil a. Dhiraj Sunil patip, and observed as under:- "ln a country like India, important d.ecisions such as mantage, diuorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the 3 (2u23€CC Online Bom 1926) 7 TrC,VP. No.1 l9 of 2a24 I-NA, J familg. For a lady to trauel alone for the proceedings to a Court uthere the fate of her mariaqe is going to be decided without anA family rnember utould definitelg be a matter of concerrl and collse not only physical inconuenience but also emotional and p sy cho log ical inco n u enie nce,,

12. Further, the High Court of Bombay in priganka Rahul Patil u. Rahut Rauind;a patil+ followed the principle laid down in IV.C.V.Atshwarya,s case (3.a cfted supra) and Deuika Dhiraj pqtil Nee Deuika Jagprakash Buttepatil's case (4rh crted supra), and held as follows:- "The underlying pincipte goueming the proceedings under Section of the CpC, is that conuenience of Lhe tui,fe is to be prefened. ouer the conuenience of the husband.,, i 3. 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 tra'sfer of the proceedings from one court to another court, the courts must prefer the convenience of the lvife over the convenience of the husband. o (2023 SCC Online Bom 1982) 8 LNA' J TrCMP.No.4l9 ol2021 1S

14. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner resident of Nalgonda and whereas H'M'O'P filed by the respondent is pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Medak. Further, petitioner has to take care of her minor child and it is also case of the petitioner that she faced harassment when she appeared before the Senior Civil Judge at Medak in connection with H'M'O'P fited by the respondent and in view of the long distance between Nalgonda where petitioner is residing to Medak where H.M.O.P is pending, it is diflicult for her to tfvel along with her minor child on every date of hearing' 15. It is also relevant to note that the cases utz'' MC' CC and DVC between the parties are pending before the Courts at Nalgonda, whereas HMOP liled by the respondent- husband is Pending before the Court at Medak and the respondent has to apPea-r before the cases pending before Nalgonda.

16. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid 9 Ll\,iA, J TrCMP.n'o.119 of2024 decisions, this Court is inclined to accede to the request of the petitior-rer u.ife seeking transfer of the case.

17. AccordingJy, this Transfer C.M.p. is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.lO of 2024 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Meedak, is withdrawn and transferred to the Iile of the Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda. Nalgonda District, for disposal in accordance with law.

18. The learned Senior Civil Judge at Meedak, shall transmit the entire original record in H.M.O.p No.10 of 2024 duly' indexed, to the Judge, Family Court at a Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. sd/- A.V.S . PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2 .)

4. 5 The Senior Civil Judge at Medak The Judge, Family Court. Nalgonda, Nalgonda District' One CC to Sri G Vasantha Rayudu A{vocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Raj Kumar Rudra Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies DL/gh 1# I t HIGH COURT DATED:1 110212025 ORDER TRCMP.No.419 of 2024 o 7 * t4 al,nnn zw ((, '( i c. * T Hc e\) ALLOWING THE TT.C.M.P. \